| Revision as of 18:01, 29 March 2021 editSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,779 edits →Appeal request: cmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:23, 24 January 2025 edit undoVoorts (talk | contribs)Administrators21,247 edits →WP:BLPN closures: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}} | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |algo = old(6d) | |||
| |counter = 331 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |maxarchivesize = 700K | ||
| Line 9: | Line 7: | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| }}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | |||
| }}</noinclude> | |||
| <!--S | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| Line 21: | Line 18: | ||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |maxarchsize= 700000 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| --> | --><!-- | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | ||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| --><noinclude> | --><noinclude> | ||
| ==Open tasks== | ==Open tasks== | ||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | {{Admin tasks}} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| == Pages recently put under ] == | |||
| {{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{collapse top|bg=#F0F2F5|Report}} | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| {{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}} | |||
| {{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. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| == Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts == | |||
| :{{formerly|Review of DRV supervotes by King of Hearts}} | |||
| After an unsuccessful ], I am seeking community review of two ] closures by {{admin|King of Hearts}}: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| '''In the ''Squad'' case,''' I closed the AfD as "delete". King of Hearts closed the DRV as ''"Overturn to redirect. Those who !voted "delete" at the AfD have failed to advance an argument as to why a redirect would not be appropriate."'' In doing so, King of Hearts failed to properly do their job as DRV closer, which is to assess whether consensus exists at DRV to overturn an AfD closure, and if so, to implement that consensus. Instead, they merely inserted their own view about how the AfD should properly have been closed, without even attempting to assess the consensus of the DRV discussion (i.e., they cast a ]). If they had done their job, they would have either found that there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, or even consensus to endorse it. In both cases, the article's history would have remained deleted, consistent with the AfD consensus. This would not have prevented the later creation of the redirect from ] that now exists and with which I agree. | |||
| 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 ].}} | |||
| King of Hearts' comments indicate that they severely misunderstand applicable deletion policy if they that ''"There is no such thing as a consensus to delete at AfD per se"''. But in our policy and practice there is indeed such a thing as a "delete" consensus at AfD. It means that the history of the deleted article is suppressed. All attempts to change policy to the contrary have failed (cf. ]). That was the consensus at both the AfD and probably also at the DRV. I am concerned that King of Hearts is attempting to reintroduce such failed proposals, which do not have community consensus, by misusing the DRV process. | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (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. ... 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">[]]</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 ]. — ] ] 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. ♠]♠ ] 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;">—] <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) | |||
| *:{{yo|Moscow Connection}} Your ''comments'' are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, <s>but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.</s><small>It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. </small> ] ] 21:40, 18 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? 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}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with a little ] and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ]@] 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abottom}} | |||
| == Lardlegwarmers block appeal == | |||
| Similarly, '''in the ''United Airlines Flight 1175'' case,''' {{u|Black Kite}} closed the AfD as "delete", and King of Hearts closed the DRV as ''"Restore without prejudice against a new AfD."'' But in this case as well, opinions in the DRV discussion were divided and there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. And again, King of Hearts did not even attempt to assess consensus but merely cast a supervote in favor of what they considered the right outcome. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| As a collaborative project, Misplaced Pages works only if all, especially admins, respect consensus and the deletion process. Admins must not use their special user rights (in this case, the undelete right) to bypass this process. I therefore propose that the community overturns these DRV closures and lets another admin close these DRV discussions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement from Lardlegwarmers === | |||
| I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks. | |||
| {{talk reflist}} | |||
| === Statement from Tamzin === | |||
| Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion among uninvolved editors === | |||
| *This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ] ] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ] ] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ] ] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments from involved editors === | |||
| {{hat|Notification of the participants in previous discussions}} | |||
| * Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|MER-C|Dial911|MrsSnoozyTurtle|Luciapop|Cunard|Mazurkevin|SmokeyJoe|S Marshall|Andrew Davidson|SportingFlyer|Hut 8.5|Stifle|Cuoxo|Spartaz}} I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to ] and/or its deletion review. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Black Kite|Andy Dingley|SportingFlyer|Ansh666|Eherot|IJBall|Stormy clouds|A lad insane|Petebutt|Ahunt|Dannythewikiman|ZLEA|Mangoe|Jax 0677|Andrewgprout|Dfadden|George Ho|Dingruogu|Jetstreamer|AEMoreira042281|EnjoysButter|Champion|Davey2010|Donaldd23|DonFB|Icewhiz|Samf4u}} I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Dhaluza|Cunard|Jclemens|SmokeyJoe|DGG}} I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to the deletion review of the above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>Noting that I was left off of the notifications, not sure if anyone else was. ] (]) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC) </small> | |||
| *Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *To me, the first close does indeed read as a superclose - there isn't a consensus in the DRV that that position was held, and if the closer felt it was the case, they should have !voted themselves to stress that position. I would reverse it. The second close, however, is significantly more legitimate. In base numbers, it's somewhat "no consensus", but the DRV policy strength arguments made by the the restore supporters is significantly clearer. I ''may'' have gone NC myself, but I don't believe the close was bad. ] (]) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Ban appeal from Rathfelder == | |||
| *The first close reads as a !supervote to me too - There wasn't any consensus to overturn and if KoH felt the AFD shouldn't of been closed he should of stated that in the DRV as opposed to closing/overturning. The second one - Opinions were divided and sources were also provided although a discussion then occurred over those sources. Personally it's a balance of No Consensus and Restore so don't really see a problem with that one. First DRV was wrong tho. –]<sup>]</sup> 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I was involved in both of these and I was surprised by the outcome of both of them, especially the Squad (app) outcome. On numbers alone, that was an endorse/decline 5, relist 2. The United Airlines 1175 discussion was closer to an endorse/restore no consensus. I really only have an issue with that because the topic falls ''far'' below our notability guidelines for aviation incidents, it's turned into an exceptionally crufty article which completely overplays the incident, and I've been criticised for taking it to AfD immediately by two !voters in the new AfD. Even given my involvement, I'd recommend overturning the Squad (app) one. I'd like the United Airlines one to be vacated, but I'm even more involved in that one. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Both look like super votes to me --] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Without commenting on the validity of them individually, there were rather a lot of challenges to King of Hearts' AfD closes last year, by amongst others experienced editors {{u|TonyBallioni}}, {{u|Premeditated Chaos|PMC}}, {{u|ArnoldReinhold}}, {{u|HighKing}}, and {{u|JayBeeEll|JBL}}: . I can see he's been inactive for long periods of time since 2014, perhaps this should be taken as a gentle suggestion to refresh himself on our current norms on closing and consensus? – ] <small>(])</small> 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is an additional concern, Joe - the points often aren't unreasonable as such, but in quite a few (not all) of the cases linked to somewhere in this discussion would belong as !votes, not closes. ] (]) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Both of the drv closes should be vacated and reclosed. KoH’s closes can be added as votes, because that is what they are. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *A redirect is fine as people searching for Squad App will get to know (more) about its acquisition by Twitter. However, like {{u|Sandstein}} I also find KoH's DRV closure decision is out of line. A deleted article's history remains suppressed. The discussion here is about KoH's DRV closures and I feel they are not shy of casting Supervotes. ] (]) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The first DRV doesn't look like a consensus to redirect at all. It looks more like a consensus to endorse the original close - I see there is an attribution/copyright issue but the endorsers clearly considered that aspect. Ditto on the second DRV - it's clear that not everybody agrees that the new sources justify restoration, one could call that a consensus to endorse or no consensus but it's not a consensus to restore, really. ] (]) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Both of them are supervotes, especially the first one. I closed the Flight 1175 one and there was no other way it ''could'' be closed - if significant information has since come to light the correct close would be "Endorse but allow recreation". I see that the subsequent AfD is turning into a trainwreck as well (]) as ] ones often do. ] 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *If I were to have voted myself in either the initial discussion or the DRV for the Squad case, I would have voted to either turn to a redirect or to relist the original AFD debate. ''That being said'', I would not have closed the discussion as KoH did. As an admin, if we have our own opinion on the discussion at hand, we should vote and not close the discussion ourselves. There's nothing wrong with thinking the consensus was incorrect, and to vote accordingly. There is something wrong with closing a discussion against consensus. I would overturn that one. The second one, on the UAL Flight 1175, it's close enough to the border that it's within range of closing either way; I think that one is okay as it. --]] 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Perhaps I should not have used the word "overturn" to describe the result of the ] DRV. However, the fact of the matter is that consensus is not required to create a redirect at a previously deleted page, or to restore the history under a redirect (assuming that the deletion was not for content-related violations). As neither the AfD nor the DRV supports a consensus that the redirect is inappropriate, the correct course of action is to allow the redirect. But why so much fuss over the ] rather than the end result, which Sandstein admits would have been the same? -- ]]]] 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Under what policy does the creation of a redirect nullify the previous AfD deletion of earlier revisions? You state that "consensus is not required" for such an undeletion, but ] doesn't support this claim (nor does ], which refers to UDP). Unilaterally overturning a consensus-based and consensus-endorsed deletion should not be done lightly and needs a much better reason than a claim that "consensus is not required" without anything to back this up. ] (]) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::It looks like this practice is ], but no one has thought to add it to an official policy page. It might be worth reopening this discussion. -- ]]]] 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You have more people here in this discussion saying that it ''isn't'' OK than was in that discussion from 8 years ago. Apparently, consensus has changed. --]] 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::So let's open an RfC to clarify the policy then. I've been following that interpretation since there has not been any consensus since to overturn it, but let's decide as a community what the right interpretation is once and for all and enshrine it in policy. I'm happy to follow whatever is decided going forward. -- ]]]] 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{ec}} I don't think I ever said you weren't doing what you thought to be correct; but it seems clear that the practice is not well supported. Policy documents practice and does not determine it, and you have a LOT of very experienced admins here saying that one should not be restoring an article history of a deleted article; we don't have any written policy that even says you should be doing so, and you've pointed to an 8-year-old discussion with minimal participation that was not documented anywhere obvious. Based on the fact that basically no one knew such a policy existed, except you and the few people that participated in the discussion, it wasn't documented anywhere, and that enough admins clearly don't see it as practice, it would be advisable to stop doing it. Of course, if we need to have an entire RFC just to force one admin to stop doing something no one else does, we can, but do we need to??? --]] 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Are they saying that because this is what they believe policy to be, or what they believe policy should be? It appears that I am outnumbered on the first front, but I think it is a rather sensible thing to allow restoration of non-sensitive content underneath an existing page (whether article or redirect) and it's worth a discussion to see where the community stands on the merits of the issue, i.e. I think they might be amenable on the second front. But either way, it enshrines it in policy so that there will be no more disagreements in interpretation. -- ]]]] 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::The 2015 RfC ] was at ] and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. ] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::That discussion was about how to handle discussions where the community consensus was to redirect an article. That doesn't apply here. But you already knew that. So I'm not exactly sure why you brought it up, since you already knew it was about a different situation than the one we are discussing today. --]] 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::That discussion is irrelevant, because it's about history-only restores. You recreated the redirect yourself (with an obvious supervote which re-litigated the AfD, which isn't allowed) and unnecessarily restored the history with it, which practically no-one asked for. Even if that had not been the case, it was a seven-year old discussion at a backwater page in which only three people supported, and the relevant question to this issue ("does this include history under redirects?") went unanswered. ] | |||
| *::::So let's have the discussion then. I followed what I believed was a reasonable interpretation of policy, and apparently there is disagreement here. So let's clarify it and establish a policy for history undeletion for the future. -- ]]]] 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|King of Hearts}}, the end result is not the same. If you had correctly closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "endorse", and then created a redirect over the deleted article, there would have been no problem. The problem is that (a) you closed a DRV discussion contrary to policy by imposing your own preference and ignoring the discussion's consensus, and (b) misused your administrator privileges to undelete a page's history that according to policy and the outcome of both the AfD and DRV ought to have remained deleted. This is a matter of administrator misconduct if we get down to it, and you should take it much more seriously. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I agree with Sandstein. I feel like the entire point of the discussion was missed. That DRV asked a very specific question which had everything to do with history and attribution. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with going in and creating a fresh redirect. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{ec}} Creating a new redirect (with no history) would be plausibly allowed even with an AFD, as the prior AFD did not delete a redirect, and policy only says that creating a new article with substantially the same content; a redirect is a different thing entirely. Arguably, deletion is ''primarily'' about removing an article history from public view, so recreating a history ''to turn it into a redirect'' is clearly against policy. But creating a redirect without undeleting is not overturning the AFD in this instance. --]] 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| As I see it, a closer can always consider a compromise close , even if one had not been previously suggested. I If I thought an article ought to be deled and it were kept as a redirect or a merge, I would normally see no reaaon to challenge it. If I wanted it as a full article, I probably would accept it also, and try to build up the article again if possible. In nominating, if I think somethin isn't even worth a redirect or a merge, I say so. If someone comes up wirth a better idea than mine, I dont; call it a supervote. There sems to be a great deal of concern about the details of copyright. There are oither ways of indicating attribution than retainingthe edits----such as apending a list of the other editors in a note.''']''' (]) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Rathfelder}} | |||
| *Both of King of Hearts' closes correctly assessed the strengths of the DRV participants' arguments.<p>King of Hearts correctly assessed the consensus at ]. King of Hearts followed the global consensus on the matter. Both the policy ] and the 2015 RfC ] support King of Hearts' close. The 2015 RfC was at ] and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. From ], "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."<p>Before creating the AfD, AfD nominator {{user|MER-C}} ] to ] with the history preserved under the redirect. The redirect was undone, after which MER-C took the article to AfD. Had the redirect not been reverted, ] would currently exist as a redirect with the history preserved. No editor at ] explained why the page's history should have been deleted. Since the article's history did not contain BLP or copyright violations, the policy and the global consensus support its restoration.<p>] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page | |||
| * ] declined by the community | |||
| * ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ] | |||
| Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here: | |||
| *'''Comment:''' After Sandstein closed ] as "delete", I could have requested at ] that ] be moved to my userspace or ]. Would that request have been denied? On what basis would the request have been denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at ] for improvements or for use in other articles. From ] (my bolding): <blockquote>This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be ], restored as a ] or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or '''used elsewhere''' (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed ]). This means that content deleted ''after discussion''—at ], ], or ] among other ]—may in some cases be provided to you, but such ''controversial'' page deletions will ''not'' be overturned through this process.</blockquote> Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". After completing a merge of the article's content to ], I would have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title.<p>] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br> | |||
| I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *King of Hearts' close of ] accurately assessed the consensus. ] says: "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator and DRV participants presented "significant new information". Five DRV participants (Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG) supported restoring the article or allowing recreation. Two DRV participants (SportingFlyer and Hut 8.5) did not support restoring the article or allowing recreation. Closing as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.<p>] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{u|Cunard}} The consensus at ] was in answer to the question "Should our standard practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?". The Squad AfD was not closed as redirect - it was closed as Delete, so that RfC is irrelevant. The purpose of DRV is not to re-litigate an AfD, it is to determine whether it was closed properly in the first place, which that one was. Yes, of course you could have asked for the article to be ]ed to you at that point, but that's not relevant either to a discussion about KoH's DRV close, which is something we appear to be getting off the point of. ] 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*The RfC is relevant in explaining why the AfD was incorrectly closed. ] was proposed to be converted into a redirect, and the RfC consensus was that the standard practice should not be to delete article histories when a conversion happens (or is proposed with no one explaining why a redirect should not be made). The article history should be deleted only when there is a BLP violation, copyright violation, or other reason that makes retaining the history undesirable. No such reason was presented at the AfD, so the history should have been retained.<p>Since you note that a ] would have been fine, to avoid these contentious discussions, I wish I did this instead of opening the DRV:<ol><li>After ] was deleted by the AfD, I should have requested that ] be draftified to ].</li><li>After draftication, I would have completed the merge and redirected ] to ].</li></ol> Would this violate any policies? Additionally, if this ANI discussion results in the history of ] being deleted, would I be violating any policies if I did this: <ol><li>I ask at ] for ] be draftified to ].</li><li>I redirect ] to ]. (I would not do a merge since the merge is already completed.)</li><li>I redirect ] to ] with an edit summary noting that the history is now at ] and that a merge has been completed.</ol>I think my proposed draftication approach would be compliant with ] practices. Even though it is not the main point of the discussion, it is important for me to ask this here to ensure I am not violating any policies if I take this approach now or in the future.<p>] (]) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*You would have needed to properly attribute the merge, and it may be controversial because you're attempting an end-around of a contentious deletion discussion and DRV. The least controversial thing to do IMO would probably to "merge" the information by rewriting the blurb in the list completely from scratch yourself to avoid any attribution issues. As noted above, that RfC isn't on point here, since that didn't deal with content deleted at AfD. Also, we are getting away from the point here, which is why the DRV consensus was ignored without explanation, so a sub-heading may be a good idea. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 21:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*The is properly attributed: "merged content from Squad (app). From ], 'the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22.'" I will not rewrite the merged content since it is properly attributed and meets the content policies. My comment was to ask whether a ] is fine after an AfD is closed as "delete" so that I can do a merge. As long as I'm not violating any policies, for future AfDs, I plan to ask for ]s to avoid contentious DRVs like this one. When I , I only wanted to improve Misplaced Pages. Merging material about a non-notable acquired company to a company's list of acquisitions should be uncontroversial. I never expected it to become this controversial. ] (]) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to ''The Times'', so was not in wikivoice. ] (]) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*1) I have asked the closing admin's permission before refunding something which was just closed as delete before, especially where I've brought sources to an AfD, then I bring that to ]. If it's just a simple GNG not being met, it should work. I assume DRV would be the case to go otherwise, but it's not in its purview - possibly a Village Pump question? 2) Whether the content could be merged was never the controversy, it was how it should be done, especially considered there have been sanctions applied in the past. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 00:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. ] (]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - ] ] 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding {{xt|articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment}}, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section ''before'' making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. ] (]) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * RE: ]. I find this a little frustrating, there being a trivial root cause from which a number of non-ideal actions have resulted trying to fix the problem without addressing the root cause. | |||
| *'''Support'''. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. {{u|Robert McClenon}} says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. ] ] 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : The root cause is the AfD nominator: <blockquote>Non-notable startup, future coverage unlikely because it was acquired by Twitter. ] 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)</blockquote> failing ], and ], seriously written policy matters. Everyone has ignored that policy. User:Cunard boldly tried to fix in a non-ideal way. User:Sandstein, I observed long term, holds little respect for Cunard's style of doing things like this. User:King of Hearts I know as someone who tries to implement the right outcome, even if it is not what everyone is saying, and this is somewhere near the boundary of Supervote versus "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy". --] (]) 23:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If I’m not unmistaken ] was banned by ''ArbCom'', not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic ] actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here ''longer''. ] (]) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. ] ] 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] (]) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. ] (]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a ''de facto'' one. This is a feature, not a bug. ] (]) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Support''' per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. ] (]) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit == | |||
| * RE ]. I '''Endorse''' the DRV close. Has the close been altered since the start of this thread. "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a perfect reading of the discussion. There are new sources, someone thinks the old AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, this is a trivial decision that should not have come to DRV but was actionable at REFUND. This should NOT be read as an "Overturn" of the old AfD. Perhaps,re-word to "Endorse, but restore without prejudice against a new AfD". --] (]) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{atopr | |||
| * My attention was directed to this discussion because I apparently have disagreed with a King of Hearts decision in the past. I do not remember the incident and the list of diffs included is long. Discussion closing is one of the more thankless tasks on Misplaced Pages, and those brave enough to attempt it deserve the benefit of the doubt. I looked at the outcomes in the two articles mentioned here. One retains an aviation incident that recently got heavy press coverage, the other has been changed to a redirect that everyone seems to agree is appropriate. The first is being reviewed again. The issue with the second, if I understand things correctly, is whether the the history, pretty trivial in this case, should have been retained. I fail to see any way in which our readers are remotely damaged by either of these decisions. ]. Perhaps both sides could reflect on how things could be handled with less drama in the future, but it seems to me that the amount of energy being put in to this discussion is excessive, given the minuscule impact of the incidents in question on the project. --] (]) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I requested the second DRV, but I neglected to specifically state up front that I was seeking a restoration with history, so that may have caused some initial confusion that I only clarified later. My take is: SportingFlyer was clearly defending the prior AfD; Hut 8.5 was skeptical and suggested a draft; Cunard and DCG specifically voted "Restore" (along with myself); Jclemens and SmokeyJoe had "Endorse" votes that are not clear because I was not clear up front, but they did not oppose getting a refund and recreating. So I don't think the close with restore was inconsistent with the discussion, much less against consensus. ] (]) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I think that what's happening here is that KoH is giving WP:ATD a bit too much weight in his closes. It's leading to cases where KoH sees a consensus to delete but finds that ATD undermines it. KoH -- the community is aware of ATD, and is able to apply it appropriately. Where the community decides to delete content, it's right for sysops to implement that decision.—] <small>]/]</small> 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** I recognize S Marshall's view as valid, but I argue the other side. KoH is one of few admins who respect WP:ATD for its standing. It is clearly and strongly written into ], which is one of the most black letter policies, and especially so from the standing of WP:DRV. ATD definitely undermines an apparent consensus at AfD where the nominator and participants are in apparent blindness to an obvious ATD-M option. The AfD community seems insufficiently aware of ATD. There are insufficient speedy closes due to nominators failing to follow the AfD WP:BEFORE instructions. When Cunard raised a policy basis undermining the AfD from its beginning, others, especially the closer, were wrong to ignore him. I agree with agr that people should reflect on how things could be handled with less drama. My suggestion is that a merge proposal mid-AfD should necessitate a relist for a minimum seven days, pinging all prior participants, and asking the nominator why they didn't consider that merge option. --] (]) 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***] is subject to interpretation and application by the community in deletion and deletion-adjacent discussion, and we interpret and apply policies by consensus. As S Marshall correctly says, the community is aware of ATD and is able to apply it. Closers should not substitute their own views.<br>In any event, policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. If policy is at odds with how a matter is ordinarily treated by consensus, that means that the policy should be changed to reflect this. ] (]) 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **** Disagree with ] that {{tq|Policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters}}. Instead: Policy is <s>merely a codification</s> <u> documentation</u> of the community's <s>ordinary</s> <u>preferred</u> way to treat particular matters. And on Squad (app), there are multiple facets of non-preferred actions in this story, and falling back to policy as worded should be strongly recommended. —] (]) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***SmokeyJoe, I agree with a relist when there is a merge proposal mid-AfD. I suggested a merge as an alternative to deletion at ] and pinged the AfD participants who had already commented. Two of the AfD participants switched from "delete" to "merge". None of the participants have opposed a merge or said the article history should be deleted.<p>I am hopeful that participants at ] would have been supportive of a merge/redirect had they been pinged and had the AfD been relisted. I am particularly hopeful because the AfD nominator considered an ] approach by redirecting ] to ]. The redirect was undone because Squad was not mentioned at Twitter. If the AfD nominator had known about ], the AfD nominator likely would have redirected Squad to there. No arguments at the AfD were made against an ] so it is incorrect to say that the community had applied and rejected it for this AfD.<p>I agree with you and agr that this is too much drama for a very trivial issue. In the future, instead of starting a DRV, I will request a ] of the article history to draftspace to complete a merge (). The article's history will exist in draftspace instead of mainspace which is not ideal but it accomplishes the same goal of having access to the material in order to complete a merge, without this drama.<p>] (]) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *** {{u|Cunard}} I think that is a reasonable idea (as long as there are no problems with the hstory, of course). {{u|SmokeyJoe}} There are already enough people whose main occupation at Misplaced Pages is gaming our deletion processes (not people in this dicussion, I hasten to add), the last thing we want is to give them another weapon to do that. ] 10:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **** I don’t think that relisting due to the raising of an obvious merge targets not yet mentioned is a weakness to gaming, it would be a positive feature. Is ATD-M policy or not? —] (]) 11:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***** ''Obvious and useful'' merge targets, yes, absolutely. ''Any'' merge target? Not a good idea - we know how that will go. ] 11:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****** Agreed. I would leave that to a competent relister (and relister s must be qualified to close, including UNINVOLVED) to decide. In this case, the target was obscure, not easy to find by a content search for the title (squad), but obvious when discovered. —] (]) 11:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ******* So what are our expectations for delete !voters at AfD, then? Imagine that I'm reading an AfD and I agree that the article should be deleted. Should I type out: "'''Delete'''. I have been unable to identify a suitable merge target. I have considered the merge target proposed by editor A, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate. I have also been unable to identify a suitable redirect target. I have considered the redirect target proposed by editor B, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate." Or can I just type: "'''Delete'''" in the happy expectation that the closer will assume that I've read the preceding discussion with the right amount of care and attention and that I'm not a drooling idiot? Because if it's the former, then I think we have a problem with our processes.—] <small>]/]</small> 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ******** The answer is at ], and in particular #C.4. The expectation is that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. Subsequent participants assume the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. When they say “delete” it is based on the assumption that there is no suitable merge target. When later someone brings up a suitable merge target, it reveals that the nominator did not do their duty, and that the other participants were working under a false assumption. —] (]) 19:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ********* I don't see it that way because, although ATD has the force of policy, BEFORE doesn't. It's not even a guideline. It's an information page, which editors are free to disregard, so when !voting we can't assume that BEFORE has been complied with. (And some editors are new. It's always good practice to check.)—] <small>]/]</small> 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ********** We can’t assume the nominator has followed BEFORE, ], and indeed, MER-C may have followed BEFORE point by point and just failed to find the kind of obscure merge target, and indeed, trying searching Misplaced Pages content for “squad” is not helpful. But, late in the AfD, once someone has raised an as yet unexpected but in-hindsight-obvious merge target, the earlier participants need that to be brought to their attention. What Cunard did was non-ideal. Closing regardless of the new information was non-ideal. Cunard and Sandstein not quickly and simply agreeing to a redirect with the history available was non-ideal. King of Hearts boldly imposing the obvious solution was non-ideal. And more. —] (]) 03:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The closure of ] is patently obviously out of line with the consensus of the discussion, and King of Hearts has substituted their own opinion, which should have been cast as a !vote, for a correct neutral reading of consensus. The clear and obvious consensus of that discussion was to endorse, and the closure should be vacated and the discussion reclosed accordingly.<br>] did not have consensus one way or another. ] states that a no-consensus result at a DRV of a deletion discussion may be closed as endorse or as relist, at the closer's discretion. However, King of Hearts chose not to follow this process and instead restored the article without prejudice to an RFD. This was not an option open to them, and accordingly this closure should also be vacated and the discussion reclosed with one of the permitted two possible outcomes. I do not especially care which. ] (]) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **I consider that last point a little unfair on them. That DRV wasn't the "AfD close review" type, it was the "new information type". A relist would therefore have been inappropriate and, frankly, bizarre. An endorse of the original AfD close can occur in this category whether or not the article is recreated. I think a reasonable equivalent interpretation would be "not restore or restore" ] (]) 10:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{rto|Nosebagbear}} I am sorry, I've possibly been unclear. The closure instructions say that a no consensus DRV must be closed as an overturn if the deletion was a speedy, and goes to closer discretion if it was an XFD. That was the distinction I was looking to make, not a question of new information or not. ] (]) 14:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Sandstein on ]: {{tq|They sought to prevent that foreseeable consensus outcome, which they do not contest, by merging part of the article elsewhere and now invoking attribution policy. But that policy was not intended to allow individual editors to prevent the community from deleting content by consensus.}} Consensus does not trump the attribution requirement of the Creative Commons license. King of Hearts was right in restoring it. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 11:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*That's not correct, there is no need for the edit history to satisfy the Creative Commons licence. does that. ''''']''''' 12:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*:Better to keep the history (even if the content of the revisions has to be deleted) as it keeps updated if usernames change and ensures any attributions using the "permanent link" still function. That could even be extended to other deleted pages where the reason for deletion is notability and content has been copied (or could be) to another site, not necessarily within Misplaced Pages. Pages without a potential redirect target would have to be moved somewhere and blanked. ] still recommends just using the page name, but when that is done the link is broken when disambiguation is necessary or there is a new primary topic for the title, or when the source page is deleted. ] (]) 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Not sure about the 2nd example, but the first is pretty clearly a supervote. I'm not going to second guess his motivation, but the close doesn't represent the consensus as given. ] - ] 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I was pinged to this discussion by {{u|Joe Roe}} as someone who has raised a similar concern before. The discussion Joe Roe mentions that I was involved in () was very similar to the Squad (app) case that Sandstein raises above: the closure advanced an argument not defended in the discussion, and would have been more appropriate as a contribution to that discussion (rather than a closure). I think extracting consensus from a deletion discussion without injecting one's own views is a real skill; I think concern about KoH's mastery of this skill is legitimate. (I have on a few occasions looked through the list of overdue RfCs to try to help out, and quickly determined that ''I'' do not have this skill, FWIW.) I have not looked at the UA1175 case. --] (]) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Is all this space (okay, at least half of it) *really* being wasted to discuss if a redirected article should have its history deleted or not? This is the course of action suggested by Peter James (without any bolding, but !votes and all that) in the DRV. I also suggested it as a possible (and likely best) way forward. No one in the DRV or AfD provided a policy-based reason why undeleting the history would make the encyclopedia worse. No one. And is anyone here going to really claim that deletion here is a better outcome than a redirect? Anyone? We got to the right place. I don't think there is an actual argument otherwise anyone has advanced (I'll note this hasn't gone to RfD...). The rest is process. Viva la ]. ] (]) 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Exactly. I think I worded my rationale poorly, leading people to think I was supervoting (i.e. basing my closure on the AfD rather than the DRV), but what I meant to say was: The DRV "endorse" !voters failed to explain how the "delete" !voters in the AfD articulated a policy-based reason why the history must be removed. The sole rationale given for deletion was based on notability, not content. -- ]]]] 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*I strenuously disagree. Restoring an article is a use of admin tools; a better justification is needed to ] for that than just "eh, what's the difference?" - especially since that works both ways; creating a new redirect would have been entirely in line with policy and would have correctly reflected both the consensus of the DRV and the consensus at the AfD. Furthermore, I absolutely think that deletion is a better outcome than a redirect; retaining history that is of no value means that any editor, at any time, could revert the redirect and restore material that was legitimately deleted via consensus on an AfD and whose deletion was unambiguously upheld in a DRV. --] (]) 03:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*How can you know that it will have no value? And yeah, they could also recreate the article. The only thing that would stop that is page protection. The history being there or not doesn't change that. But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. Yes, WP:REFUND exists, but lots of folks aren't familiar with that. And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? If so, doesn't that make the AfD votes flawed? If not, I invite you to send the redirect to RfD... ] (]) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*{{tq|How can you know that it will have no value?}} ... {{tq|But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate.}} ... {{tq|And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here?}} These are all arguments that seek to re-litigate the AFD (arguing that the deleted article may have value, arguing that it may become notable in the future, arguing for a redirect instead of deletion.) By making them, you are overtly requesting a ] to override an AFD whose unambiguous consensus you disagree with. --] (]) 03:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let's try again. Do you feel having a redirect is wrong/improper to have here? If so, can you articulate a policy/guideline-based case? As far as I can tell, no one in the AfD provided even a statement that it would be bad to have a redirect, let alone a policy-based reason not to have one. AfD is not a vote. Strength of argument trumps numbers. And there are no arguments at all against the redirect. Further, the redirect is exactly the right thing to have here. There is no way it would be deleted at RfD. ] (]) 12:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. ] ] 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''- I agree that the community understands what ATD is and how to apply it. In this case there was consensus that the article should go, that there was no objection to creating a redirect in its place, but that the page history should not be restored. All of this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for a deletion discussion to reach. I don't think overruling it was a good idea, especially since DRV is the venue to go when you feel consensus has been overruled on a whim. ] <sub>]</sub> 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If this is about Squad, there was no consensus on whether the history should be deleted, and no reason not to restore it as a redirect. The only apparent consensus was based on discussion before an alternative was suggested (and it's also common for editors to participate in ] without having read the comments already in the discussion or the guidelines they refer to in their own comments). Is there consensus that deletion of a page can only be reviewed to reconsider whether there should be a separate article? Can this be reviewed at deletion review or is it now necessary to ]? ] (]) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:: This is simply the process for challenging whether ] was closed correctly. (and also another.). BEFORE and ATD-M are important arts of the story, but the real question is whether King of Hearts closed the DRV correctly. —] (]) 00:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The reason I gave very little weight to the "endorse" !voters as far as the edit history is concerned is that they simply stated that the AfD process was correctly carried out. Sure - but where has anyone advanced an argument as to why the content is unsuitable for public view? I think it gets to the crux of the matter: To prevent a merge/redirect, are "delete" !voters at AfD required to indicate why the content of an article needs to be suppressed, in addition to establishing why the subject is not notable? For me the answer is yes, and a satisfactory argument to that end has not been presented either at AfD or DRV. -- ]]]] 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ] ] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠]♠ ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' both DRV closes. In the first case, there were compelling legal reasons to preserve the history and these constiture a strong argument which overrides a headcount. In the other case, there was a reasonable consensus to restore the content to assist review of the new evidence and the close reflected this. Both closes were pragmatic and reasonable but should perhaps have been explained better to avoid this further discussion. ]🐉(]) 10:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * Honestly, this looks like a disagreement over process that ignores the actual encyclopaedic outcome. I don't see a problem with King's actions. Good faith disputes over the procedural details can be resolved by one-to-one discussion. In short: guys, please discuss this over a $BEVERAGE. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *For Swarm, I think that there was enough support in the DRV for a redirect, along with extensive discussion on just how to carry it out , to justify the close. I and {{U|Cunard}} tend to be on opposite sides at deletion discussions more often than not, but I agree with what he did here and how he defended it. The close in the original afd did not take that sufficiently into account. A close should explicitly or implicitly take account of all reasonable alternativesthat have been suggested. ''']''' (]) 19:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :For UA1175, the DRV close was correct. The consensus at the discussion was to allow re-creation (& that's just what I said at the time) ''']''' (]) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requesting info== | |||
| *'''Comment'''- note that ] AfD #2 was closed as keep. So the outcome of this should not change that without good reason. My read on this kerfuffle is that it's much to do about whether the history should be kept hidden. For the record, the history on United Airlines flight 1175 was not restored, and that needs to be fixed because I included some of the original content in the expanded article. As to ], I did consider whether to do that or DRv to get the original history restored, but REFUND says it is for "deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator", while DRv is for new information, so I decided to go with the latter. But I think I should have asked for restoration to a redirect with history; this way I would have been able to add the new content on my own schedule, instead of having to stay up late to cram it into a restored article that was already back at AfD. ] (]) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files: | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be. | |||
| I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Note: I wasn't aware of this discussion until a few minutes ago, but at least one editor thinks a recent RfC I posted is related: ]. --] (]) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn Squad closure, Endorse United Airlines Flight closure.''' The Squad closure seems particularly egregious, but the United Airlines Flight closure seems within the realm of reasonable discretion, and not worthy of being overturned at AN. ] (]) 23:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I think discussion is coming to a close; could somebody close this thread and take the necessary actions? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ] ] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Appeal request == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Please Help Me! == | |||
| * | |||
| Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from ] but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from ], so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through ] due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing ] (]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is an appeal for my current DYK restrictions to be removed under ]. I have waited the 6 months required and upon reflection, I do see how my attitude and style that led to the ban could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing. I have in that time been more involved in collaboration, the main one being for ]. I have also been less reckless as I have in the past by ensuring I asked {{ping|Primefac}} for consent any time I was thinking of doing something that might be close to violating my restrictions. I have tried everything in my power to do everything right by the restrictions. I do regret the situation on Irish politics that caused me to be put under a ban and I feel that with the restrictions lifted, I would be able to be a more productive community member. | |||
| :{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Bhairava7}} / {{u|Aarav200}}, please contact ca{{@}}wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See ] for details. ] (]) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing ] (]) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ] (]) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. ] (]) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. ] (]) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ToBeFree|Sdrqaz}},I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. ] (]) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am aware that people may be upset with me for the past actions, but I would like a chance to put it right and show I can make DYKs in the affected areas without causing disruption. If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed. If this needs to be put in a specific template, could someone help me with that please? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 08:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :"Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", "do everything right by the restrictions", "regret the situation". Why not "were combative", "was POV pushing", "do everything right" and "regret my actions"? I'm trying to get an overview, but is this even an admission of fault at all? ] (]) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am apologising for what happened {{ping|ToBeFree}} and I am saying I abided by the restrictions that were placed upon me and I am requesting a chance under SO to put things right. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::When I make a mistake, I usually apologize for what I did, not for what "has happened". ] (]) 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>(and thank you for not evading the ban, but that's meeting the minimal expectation, not an achievement) ] (]) 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::That is what I am doing. I am apologising for it, <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Your "attitude and style" weren't what led to these sanctions. You were topic banned because your DYK hooks were objectively, deliberately inflammatory and POV-pushing. You did this for ''years'', so why should we trust that after just six months it will be different? There's no shortage of other editors working on DYKs and no shortage of other topics for you to write about, so what benefit to the project is there in allowing you to return to the problem areas? – ] <small>(])</small> 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **I didn't want to bring up the stats but the original discussion highlighted only 14 cherry picked examples out of that were considered to be under that description. I do understand now how that can be viewed but I do think there has to be consistency given ] ran on ] and there was no comment. The benefit for allowing me to return is that much of my Christian DYK work is on hymns and churches and as for British politics, mostly tend to be on legislation passed. It's why I have volunteered to retain the restrictions on island of Ireland, Islam and LGBT topics to avoid those risks that could be seen as inflammatory. What can I do to convince you {{ping|Joe Roe}}? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{tq|only 14}} – how many times do you think the ''average'' editor has smuggled ] and ] slurs onto the main page? You've previously used DYKs on hymns to ] and ], and obscure political articles for carefully-timed sectarian baiting. If your record shows anything, it's that you're extraordinarily creative in finding a way to make even the most banal subjects as offensive as possible, so in your case absolutely anything "could be seen as inflammatory". – ] <small>(])</small> 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per original problems and terrible attempts at downplaying them and making the C of E the victim here. The "14 out of 518" examples were only cherry-picked in the sense that they were just some cherries on top of a large cake of similar problems. For example, the discussion that lead to the ban had two examples of "Attempts to convey articles of faith in Misplaced Pages's voice", ] from 2018 and ] from 2019. But in the list of 518, we can e.g. also find the ''exact same problem'' with ], which was extensively discussed at ]: and again in 2015, when CofE presented yet again such a non-hook for ] (this time not accepted), and in 2016 ] (hook not accepted). Oh, and in 2017, as Alt1, ] (hook not used). <s>Perhaps the restrictions should be expanded to cover religion as well instead, considering that you have tried the same thing so many times over so long a period.</s> ] (]) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Religion is already covered - the first restriction is {{Tq|A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics.}} It appears C of E is proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow him to propose DYKs relating to Christianity.-- ] (]) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***Right, thanks. Struck that part, just a regular oppose then. ] (]) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **When looking at DYKs done since the restrictions were put into place, I cam across ]. Perhaps it is unfair to blame the problems solely on the CofE, the reviewers and so on should have spotted the issues, but still: this hook is presenting a work of fiction as factual, which goes against the ] ("If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way."): and that hook is sourced (in the nomination and in the article) to , which seems awfully like a pure copyright violating site (). For someone who has been here so long and created that many DYKs, that's quite worrying. ] (]) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Endorse modification</s>Oppose''' <s>to the first line of restrictions as proposed, per ]. This will allow him to write about British politics, but still be restricted from the other topics. I find the above discussion distasteful. We told him to come back in six months. He does so, says he understands what the problem was and regrets his previous behavior. In return, people are beating him up because his grovel isn't sufficiently self-deprecating. One of two things will happen if we accept the proposed modification. He might go on to be a productive DYK contributor. Or he might mess up again. If the later, we'll know soon enough and deal with it, probably with an extension of the ban which excludes ].</s> -- ] ] 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Changing to Oppose per my response to {{u|Serial Number 54129}} below. -- ] ] 23:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **He doesn't really seem to understand the problem though, claiming that the DYKs were cherry-picked and "could be perceived" as all kinds of problems, as if they weren't intended as such all along. This wasn't some occasional lapse, but a years-long campaign to attack certain groups, to shock, and to proselytize, all on the main page. He doesn't understand what the problem was (well, he probably does, but it doesn't show in this discussion), the appeal makes it look as if the problem was what other editors incorrectly saw in his DYKs (no, in very few, cherry-picked, DYKs from an otherwise flawless record). ] (]) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***But I do understand, I honestly don't know how I can say that I get what it was and I am willing to change and that I have changed by being more collaborative. I'm willing to do less "shocking" hooks. I'm honestly asking what can I do to prove I have changed but I feel like I am just getting kicked when I am down when I have done what I have been asked to. {{ping|Fram}}, please tell me what I can do? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{u|Primefac}}'s close said the sanctions {{tq|can be appealed after six months}}, that's not the same thing as "come back in six months", as ] makes clear. And note that CofE waited barely four months to (unsuccessfully) . There and here, he has not shown that he understands what the problem was at all. He describes his appalling record at DYK as a {{tq|situation}}, as {{tq|allegedly trying which was not desirable to consensus}}, an {{tq|attitude and style that could be seen to be combative}}, an {{tq|unfortunate coincidence}}, and now {{tq|cherry picked examples}}. He has on British politics and this was a central issue in his abuse of the main page. Why on earth would we open the door for him to do it again? Monitoring his nominations and potentially having to drag him back here will be yet another time-sink on top of the colossal amount of volunteer time already wasted on this, and for what... so we can have a few more hooks in the DYK queue? – ] <small>(])</small> 16:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{ping|Joe Roe}} You are making it sound like no matter what I say or do, I'll never get a chance to prove myself that I have changed. It may just be me, but that seems fundamentally unfair. I only did the arbcom one because I was told there was no limit to wait, opposed to this which I fully respected. I have already explained I am not good at wording things, which is partially due to a disability on my part. I didn't want to have to reveal that but no one seems to be willing to understand that I have taken that time to reflect and promised to change my approach to it if I am permitted to return to these areas. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 16:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The OP spent years conducting ] designed to get provocative content on the main page, and this is their allocution that they learned their lesson? Their apology shows no awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. It has nothing to do with groveling, as the person above notes, and everything to do with showing no awareness about the problems they caused. We don't need deference, we need awareness and assurances that they understand that what they did was wrong. I see zero evidence of that. --]] 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm not very good at wording these sort of things. But I am aware of what happened and how it is viewed as. I understand that what I was doing seemed as POV pushing and I have apologised for it and am willing to prove I have changed. {{ping|Jayron32}} Please give me the opportunity because I honestly do not get what I can do prove that I have understood and willing to say I will refrain from it. I even made the proposed alteration so admins can still keep the leash on controversial issues that caused the problem. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{ping|The C of E}} Did it ''seem'' to be POV pushing, or ''was'' it POV pushing? If it's not clear, that's the distinction that makes your appeals unconvincing to many. – ] <small>(])</small> 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Joe and Jayron. The appeal request is tone-deaf and not at all contrite in relation to the behaviors that got them topic-banned in the first place.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **How many times can I say I recognise what I did was wrong and apologise for it? I've done everything asked of me and had it all thrown back in my face here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would respectfully suggest that this a very unhelpful addition. Cheers. ] (]) 21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. C of E it may help those such as myself who are still making up our minds if you answered Joe's question above as to whether you think what you did was POV pushing or just seemed like it. ] (]) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Pawnkingthree}} The only reason I haven't out and out said that was because I was afraid of it being an entrapment. I was afraid that if I said it directly, people would just say "he admits it, so we will keep this on permanently". If I do say it, will that help and not be seen as I feared it? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support modification''' per Roy and ]. They have done what we have asked, that's a good sign. Like the opposition, I'm not convinced a full removal is a good idea, but how else are we supposed to gauge that if we don't give them a chance to show us? If we deny this request and it's appealed in another 6 months, how will we know if the removal is or is not justified? I think narrowing the scope of the TBAN as proposed will put us in a better place to evaluate the whole thing in the future. If they've learned, we'll have evidence that they can contribute in a related area without disruption. If they haven't, the disruption will still be limited, but we'll have direct evidence to justify a longer ban. At the very least, I hope we can give a bit more consideration than picking on a couple words in the first sentence. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I don't think it makes much sense to reduce the scope from "religion" to "Islam", considering that only one of their many offending religion-related DYKs had to do with that faith in particular (one which I felt was anyway). ] (] · ]) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' removal and '''oppose''' modifications, per Joe and Jayron. ] (]) 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per {{u|Jayron32}} who nails it above. ] - ] 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Joe and Jayron. Edit summaries like and {{tq|"my hands are tied"}} show that the C of E thinks of himself as a victim and a glaring lack of awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. The comments above are simply a continuation of this litany of self-pity. Nothing has changed. —] (]) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **I think you are misreading the intent with that message. That message was saying "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", not me just moaning and grumbling. I am aware of what happened and again, I have apologised and will change my ways {{ping|Bloom6132}}. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Not at all. If you were truly intending to say {{tq|"I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions"}}, why didn't you simply say it in that way? Your edit summary says a lot about your intent. Instead of saying something to the effect of "sorry would like to help but can't", you repeat your "moaning and grumbling", as if these sanctions were unjustified and unfair. —] (]) 07:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*But it was that way. I don't understand how people are misconstruing the intent. I don't know what people want me to say. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 07:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*You didn't say it would "break the restrictions". Your use of the terms "handcuffed" and "hands are tied" do come across as painting yourself as a victim. The terminology you employ here is no different. The only regret I'm sensing here is regret that you're now being called out for your behaviour (after years of being given a free pass), rather than regret for the behaviour itself. —] (]) 19:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''I have an idea'''.<small>Bear with me, this doesn't happen often.</small> The CofE says "''If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed.''" Well clearly there isn't any consensus that dropping the full restrictions is desired, but equally there isn't therefore a way of him showing that he has learned from the topic ban. So my idea is this. | |||
| ** 1. The topic ban is modified to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics". (Note that they are already fully T-banned from The Troubles and British & Irish nationalism, so that isn't an issue anyway) | |||
| ** 2. ''However'', before the C of E works on a proposed DYK in the areas that have been loosened (i.e. non-Ireland politics and non-Islam religion) they need to gain permission for this. | |||
| ** 3. To gain permission, they need to approach one of a group of admins or other trusted editors who are familiar with the case, and say "I wish to work on ''Article X'' for DYK, and I propose ''This hook sentence'' as a hook. | |||
| ** 4. If this is declined, they cannot submit that article for DYK. | |||
| ** 5. If it is accepted, they ''must'' (a) have the article checked by a "moderator", and/or (b) inform one of the "moderators" if there is to be any change to the hook, ''before it is submitted for DYK'', and gain permission. | |||
| ** 6. Any gaming of this relaxation of the topic ban will be sanctionable. | |||
| ** 7. I am happy to be one of the "moderators". | |||
| * Before you say "Oh, you old bleeding heart liberal snowflake BK", I was one of the most vociferous critics of The C of E over the actions that led to the topic ban, and I nearly ''blocked'' them for it at the time, let alone TBanning. . ''But'' - a little ] seems to me to be no-lose; either we get improved and/or new articles, or we end up back here. And it's purely up to The C of E which path is taken. ] 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*I think that if it's necessary to have a mechanism which is this complex in order to loosen their restrictions, then it's best not to loosen their restrictions at all. Who has the time and energy (and interest) to be a full-time watcher to make sure that all of these steps are properly taken each and every time CofE wants to file a DYK? It's not as if not having their DYK is going to harm the encyclopedia in some way: DYKs are, at best, ancillary to the primary purpose of the project. It could easily survive and prosper without them, and certainly without CofE's. ] (]) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* As I say, I don't mind doing it. DYK isn't the point really, though - to get that article to DYK you have to either (a) create it, (b) expand it 5x, or (c) get it to GA. These are all good things. ] 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Given Bike Kite's willingness to be involved in this process, I support their solution with an understanding that even slight problems could result in all of this coming back (or worse). This editor has done a fair bit of good stuff and I'd prefer to see them resume the good while losing the bad. I think it's less than 50/50 that's what will happen, but I think WP:ROPE is appropriate. Basically I trust Black Kite on stuff like this... ] (]) 03:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per BMK. While Black Kite's proposal is not unreasonable, if the only option is to replace a pretty severe, nuanced restriction, with a somewhat less severe, nuanced restriction, it's more likely that the original restriction was valid to begin with, and the user needs to show that it is no longer needed, rather than that we should bend over backwards to accomodate the user's return to the community. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* My idea is that if they can demonstrate over a period of time that they can work within the less severe restriction, we might not need the DYK TBan at all (the main TBan will still cover the major flashpoints anyway). ] 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I agree to that proposal {{ping|Black Kite}}. It's similar to what I had been doing when I asked {{ping|Primefac}} for permission when I felt I might be straying too close to a topic covered by this. I hope it can prove I have changed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 13:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', cautiously, Black Kite's proposal. This is actually a fairly narrow loosening of the restrictions and it should hopefully prevent any gaming. C of E is amenable to it, let's see if they can abide by it.-- ] (]) 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any relaxation of the topic ban. It wasn't just 14 cherry-picked examples out of hundreds, those were just some examples that were highlighted in the discussion that led to the topic ban. We have plenty of people working on DYK, and we simply don't need help from someone who abused it for years to push their own personal religious and sectarian bigotry. And as for accepting and addressing the problems, "''could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing''" doesn't come close - there's no "could be" or "appeared to be" about it, it was blatant and deliberate bigotry. ] (]) 16:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Courtesy ping to {{u|Vanamonde93}} who was the originator of the tban proposal. ] (]) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the proposal reads more like PR-speak than genuine recognition of the problem. I would support BK's proposal, but only if we have a group of admins/editors explicitly willing to sign off on CofE's DYK hooks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose relaxed restrictions'''. A lot of the past problems involved boundary-pushing. And just today on ], The C of E has been ]. So why should we now acquiesce to pushing the demarked boundary just a little, and to allowing some of the topics that were problematic in the past to return? —] (]) 03:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **I resent that accusation about yesterday, I think you misunderstood the intent behind it it. We had an editor who had a genuine question about how to nominate a DYK without naming the main contributor . There is nothing in the rules that says the main contributor has to be named so I gave, what I thought to be the correct answer around that. No boundry pushing here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 07:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - While others here have stated that rope can be given to The C of E, I feel that it would be a very bad idea given his previous behavior and gaming attempts (and given his comments here, I do not feel that he has reasonably allayed concerns). I would have been more open to BK's proposals had they been simplified to a more simple proposal (i.e. any "loosened topic" hook that The C of E proposes must have a co-nominator, rather than go through all the hoops of asking for permission in every step) and be paired with a strong implementation of restriction #3 (that any of his hooks can be vetoed without appeal), but I'm frankly not that confident in DYK's self-policing ability given previous incidents. As for the editing restrictions, if anything, I'm actually inclined to support it being ''broadened'' to politics in general given that he has, on at least one occasion since the topic ban was implemented, proposed a hook about a non-UK/Ireland country that at first glance seems somewhat questionable. For instance, see ] where the hook calls Robert Mugabe a "drunk Superman"; although the quote is in the article and is cited, given that Zimbabwe is a former British colony and The C of E previously had a userbox in his userpage indicating that he supported "the restoration of the British Empire", the nomination gave me at least some pause. At the very least, it felt to me like another case of gaming and "trying to push his beliefs" on the main page, though of course other editors may see it differently. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****No, I was not calling Mugabe a "drunk superman". It said in the article that there ''reports'' that people were calling ''the statue'' of Mugabe that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 13:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had already revised the comment to "the hook says" before your comment was posted and I apologize for any misunderstandings raised. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 14:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' on a one-strike-and-you're-out probationary period. I don't really understand telling someone to come back in six months only to tell them to go away again. People can and do change. ] <small>(])</small> 13:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' C of E, you're "proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow you to propose DYKs relating to Christianity"? Is that correct? Not so may Islamic hymns, are there. ] (]) 15:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{tps}} They're called Muslymns. – ]] 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' some form of lifting the t-ban, per ]. I would prefer a more straightforward solution suggested by The Rambling Man: just lifting the t-ban for some probationary period (say 3 months), and then revisiting the matter for lifting it unconditionally at the end of the probationary period. As the second choice, modifying the t-ban to limit it to "proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", as suggested by C of E. BK's proposal would be my third choice. Seems way too complicated but it's better than the status quo. Simply rejecting C of E's request out of hand seems too vengeful. They did as asked, and a bit of ] is in order. ] (]) 07:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Although it's quite possible that I've used it myself, I've never quite understood the ROPE argument. Someone is disruptive, so the community gets together and stops the disruption with a sanction. The editor asks for the sanction to be lifted, and we're just honky-dory with the probability of their being disruptive again -- as they have been in the past, so there's no "assumption" of bad faith, there's a '''''record''''' of bad behavior -- instead of keeping the ''status quo'', which is working just fine. The vast majority of editors who use the ROPE argument will never have to deal with the disruption that may come about, so they're basically saying "I don't mind making more work or difficulty in editing for someone else". Sanctions are not punitive, they're preventative, but an editor who has edited disruptively in the past is obviously more likely to need more prevention sometime in the future. If editors are convinced by the sanctioned editor's appeal that they've changed, that's a different matter, but hand-waving and citing ROPE is actually uncollegial and unfair to the rest of the community. ] (]) 07:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is based on the assumption that people can and do change and that a measure of forgiveness is a good thing when exercised with prudence. All of our sactions including bans and blocks, are appealable and none are forever. In this particular case it appears that the editor continued to edit constructively in other areas while serving out their t-ban. They also expressed a reasonable degree of contrition for the problems that led to the t-ban and promised to do better. Under these circumstances, yes, I think extending them some ] is reasonable, despite a record of past disruption. Note that all three options that I am suggesting above involve putting somev additional safeguards in place rather than lifting the t-ban unconditionally now. ] (]) 09:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|"In this particular case … hey also expressed a reasonable degree of contrition for the problems that led to the t-ban and promised to do better."}} I think you're one of the only editors in this discussion who believes a half-assed, exculpatory "apology" like the one above – which includes terms like "Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", and "only 14 cherry picked examples out of 518" – constitutes a "reasonable degree of contrition". —] (]) 11:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was trying to word it as politically correct as I could. If you are asking me to be more direct about what I had meant {{ping|Bloom6132}}, I apologise for everything I had done in relation to what caused my restrictions. I realise now how requesting that DYK request for the 12th was not suitable. The thing that slightly concerned me was the lack of consistency in relation to the similar hook that ran on Ulster Day. But I do understand how my actions were damaging and that is why I have proposed the alteration to let me prove I have changed (and I thank {{ping|Nsk92}} for being willing to say I can have a chance_. I am prepared to take either Black Kite or TRM's suggestions if that is felt better. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 16:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I have to note that (not having participated in the Ulster discussion) that the reason why that was allowed to run could have simply been because no one at DYK had noticed about the request being problematic until it was too late. I imagine that had the issue been brought up then, at the very least the special occasion request would have been declined. It wasn't a "lack of consistency" but rather "people not beieng aware". ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So you're deciding to be politically correct ''only now'' that it's self-serving and beneficial for you. Quite a contrast to your that included a userbox that flat-out stated: {{tq|"'''This user is politically incorrect'''".}} —] (]) 20:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose relaxation''' and '''support extension to BLPs''', perhaps. I was intending to support per Black Kite's proposals, but it appears that the breaching experiments noted by Jayron have been continuing even through this discussion: see ] over C of E's latest lark: putting a living person on the front page of WP for April Fools' Day and taking the piss out of his name (a name, I might add, that the subject himself never uses except when officially forced to). I don't think I've ever seen the last bit of WP:ROPE used up before it was even offered—but this has to be it. I honestly don't understand their total vacuum of judgement when it comes to the man page. ]] 14:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::This was no "breaching experiment". It was only because it came up as an article that could be expanded with a hook I felt was interesting. The issue of his dislike was added later after the DYK was created as far as I can recall. I am willing to change it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Serial Number 54129}}, Oh, FFS. I scrounged up every last bit of AGF I could find and went out on a limb to support the appeal, and this is where we are? And of all the possible DYK submissions he could have used for his QPQ, he had to find ]? The mind boggles. -- ] ] 23:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=Echoing previous participants ]] 17:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{replyto|The C of E|ToBeFree|Joe Roe|Fram|Pawnkingthree|RoySmith|Jayron32|WaltCip|Dumuzid|Wugapodes|M Imtiaz|Beyond My Ken|Dennis Brown|Bloom6132|Black Kite|Hobit|Swarm|Boing! said Zebedee|Valereee|Vanamonde93|David Eppstein|Narutolovehinata5|The Rambling Man|Martinevans123|PeeJay|Nsk92}} ]] 17:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Oppose relaxation, support extension''' per Serial and the BLPN discussion. ]] 14:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I see that my appeal is not going anywhere, so I henceforth '''withdraw''' my appeal. I will go on to work harder to earn people's trust in me and hope that in the future, I can be forgiven for what happened in the past. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *If this needs an extension, that extension should simply encompass DYK as a whole. A need to expand the scope of partial bans from an area indicates a need for a ban from the area. ] (]) 19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support extension of topic ban''' I am aware that the C of E withdrew their appeal, but in light of the further evidence that they are abusing DYK ( Nominating Adolf Hitler Uunoa for DYK despite the obvious BLP concerns)I think an extension is warranted to all of DYK, or at minimum to include BLPs. ] (]) 23:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support extension of topic ban''' per above. Once you open a thread on ], your conduct is under observation even if you choose to withdraw from the topic. The DYK nomination is patently unacceptable. --''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 00:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Given the above incident and other questionable nominations since the topic ban was enforced, I'm now starting to lean towards extending the topic ban to biographies (not just BLPs specifically), and I would not be opposed to a full topic ban from DYK if similar behavior continues. DYK should never be an excuse to mock anyone or anything, even if it's for April Fools. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 08:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support extension of topic ban''' – to BLPs at the very least and preferably to DYK. Would've thought he'd be more prudent with his DYK contributions while under sanction and cautious not to push the envelope. But hey, tack this to his ever-growing list of main page abuses (actual and attempted). "Only" 15 cherry picked examples now (to paraphrase what he said above). —] (]) 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Leaning oppose to extension of topic ban'''. Goodness knows that I personally have had many issues with {{u|The C of E}}'s approach to DYK over the years. However, to my mind the chief issue with his editing has always been his sheer stubbornness in resisting any changes to his hooks, which has often resulted in long and often acrimonious discussions and in clunky hooks occasionally getting approved. In my opinion, probably all that is needed by way of sanction is a requirement that all hooks and articles submitted by The C of E to DYK get the approval of an administrator in addition to that of the usual reviewer. The C of E has often shown poor judgement in hook selection, and this is chiefly what has gotten him into trouble, but I've seen little evidence of malice on his part, and before banning him from BLPs I would like to see some evidence that this has been a significant problem with his editing over time. ] (]) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::H'mm; sounds like a sure-fire way of doubling the amount of time and energy The C of E will consume from volunteers who have already enough to do of their own. While I'm all about ROPE, normally, I don't think is a normal situation anymore. ]] 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == BAG nomination == | |||
| == Request to remove one way IBAN == | |||
| Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I had an IBAN imposed in October of 2019 and I am requesting the removal of it. | |||
| The details are at: ]. | |||
| I admit that the IBAN was imposed correctly and to avoid disruption and I was 100% at fault in that case. However, I am asking that the IBAN be removed at this time. I don't believe I had any recent interaction, even tangentially but it is hard at times to keep to the IBAN due to the nature of the details. | |||
| I am not sure about notifications or comments, but I would request that any discussion I have here be sanctioned by BANEX. | |||
| Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The text of SJ's IBAN reads: '''"Sir Joseph is banned interacting with User:TonyBallioni. This is a one-way interaction ban."'''. It was imposed on 8 October 2019 after . I'd be interested to hear what {{ping|Tony Ballioni}} thinks about this request. ] (]) 23:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fixing ping {{ping|TonyBallioni}}. ] (]) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Editor Interaction Analyzer report: . ] (]) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Decline, user does not elaborate on the interaction ban or explain why it is no longer necessary. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I am inclined to keep an interaction ban that has been successful, not only in keeping Sir Joseph away from TonyBallioni but in keeping Sir Joseph on-Wiki (see the ban discussion: {{tq|Sir Joseph's very survival on Misplaced Pages counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin}}). Perhaps Sir Joseph could enlarge on how the ban is preventing him from editing Misplaced Pages and how he would interact with TonyBallioni if it were lifted. --] (]) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Hi, as you see in the interaction analyzer, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't. I also feel that there is no more need of an IBAN and we shouldn't keep it just to keep it. It's been well over a year and we shouldn't be punitive. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::OK, you want to be able to comment in discussions where TonyBallioni has commented. I would support lifting the IB for that with the advice that I think you would wise to continue to avoid commenting on, about or in response to TonyBallioni; just comment directly on the topic being discussed. --] (]) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Please see Tony's list below of discussion in which TB commented first, and SJ commented later, so he's already doing that. ] (]) 07:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support removal''' - SJ is aware of the issue and knows to avoid interaction with TB. He has demonstrated that it's possible for him to do so as a mature adult. It's easy enough to restore it, so what's the big deal? Realistically after 6 mos, t-bans and i-bans become punishment to those who have to carry the full responsibility of that ball and chain. They should never be forever anymore than PP should be forever on an article. ] ] ] 14:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support reduction''' per ]. Would it be possible to reduce the IBAN to merely avoid direct interaction (i.e. addressing directly or responding directly to comments) rather than merely avoiding pages/sections where the other is active? If not, I would also support a full elimination of the IBAN (pending TB's comments regarding the issue) as a second best option. --]] 15:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <s>*'''Support reduction'''</s> I think Jayron makes a good argument and we should allow SJ a rope and if there will be a slight problem the ban could reinstated again. --] (]) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I reread the arguments one again and I now '''Support removal''' but I urge SJ to minimize his interaction to TB to absolute minimum --] (]) 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support removal'''. Both his admission and the time that has passed with no further events suggest that SJ has learned from the experience, and could interact productively with TB. ] (]) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support removal''' per above. 17 months is long enough, really for just about any sanction of any editor. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support removal''' per WP:ROPE. ''']] (])''' 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support removal''' per ROPE and 17 months elapsed.--] (]) 19:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support removal''' This IBAN served its purpose and can be at least provisionally removed due to good behavior. ] (]) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *commenting before archive.. Can an uninvolved admin please look at this? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Oh, I guess this has started while I've been away from Misplaced Pages for a bit. I '''oppose removal and ask that this be kept open a bit after my response''' of Sir Joseph's IBAN with me. There is literally no reason to remove it. What does it accomplish? Sir Joseph and I do not edit the same topic areas. I actually can't think of a time where I have come into contact with him recently just through going through the normal pages that I go through. My experience with Sir Joseph is that he harbors grudges and would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Misplaced Pages.{{pb}}I'm also going to point out that my concerns here have some merit as it was made while I was on a wikibreak for a few weeks. Sorry if I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect Sir Joseph looking through my contributions for no reason, noticed I wasn't around, and then decided to ask for this because he knows that the community is usually unwilling to remove a 1-way IBAN if the other party is opposed. If he's ''already'' looking through my contribution history while under an IBAN, forgive me if I assume that he's going to do the same when he's not. ] (]) 12:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **You're expressing a lot of ABF in that response and I hope you rewrite it. More helpful than sharing your assumptions would be sharing if you've had any problems with SJ in the last 17 months or not. Because if the answer is "not", it may be ''you'' who is holding a grudge here. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. I don’t comment on or interact with Sir Joseph because of the IBAN: its not fair to him. I’m not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed. That’s not an assumption of bad faith or holding a grudge, that’s having an extremely negative experience with someone and not wanting to be subject to it again.{{pb}}The community traditionally does not lift one-way IBANs if one party objects. I’m simply asking that the community give me the courtesy of considering my request that SJ keep from interacting with me. There’s literally no reason for him to do so since we don’t edit the same areas and he’s at no risk of violating his ban on accident. ] (]) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****"I'm not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed" is the very definition of holding a grudge. I'm not suggesting you need to assume good faith, I'm suggesting you should not assume ''bad'' faith, like don't assume he went through your contribs, and let go of your grudge. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****I think that’s an odd definition. I don’t wish Sir Joseph any ill will. I’m not asking he be banned from the site. I’m asking that he continue not to talk about me. By your definition you’re suggesting, anyone who has experienced someone behaving overwhelmingly negatively towards them should have their concerns dismissed as a grudge or as assuming bad faith. That’s not particularly fair—it means that people who have legitimate concerns with the way others have treated them simply to have those concerns ignored. The community already decided that Sir Joseph was acting inappropriately towards me. I don’t have to demonstrate that. My concern that Sir Joseph will continue acting that way is a real one, and I think I’m within behavioural norms to express it. I also don’t think I need to defend every word choice I made from in-depth analysis and reframing of arguments when expressing that, so I’m not going to continue engaging in this thread since you appear to have made up your mind, and I am also fairly resolved that I continue to not want to have to worry about Sir Joseph interacting with me. I’ve made my request known. The community can decide, and I’ll accept the result. ] (]) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ******{{u|TonyBallioni}}, Why not support at least reduction as per Jayron and see how it going per ] and ] ] (]) 20:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ******I guess I just believe that editors should be given a way out, and not be trapped in an IBAN (or any sanction) forever. 17 months is a long time. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *******I do not support the concept of lifting sanctions just because "it's been a long time." The IBAN appears to be working, so why would we lift it? Just for the hell of it? I do not see how it is limiting SJ from doing anything except interacting with Tony, and that's a good thing that we should want to continue. ] (]) 07:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *] (this was a prior IBAN on this page that made me think of filing this request. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} {{tq| would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Misplaced Pages.}} - I guess a verbal commitment to '''not''' do these would be a positive step. ''']] (])''' 16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*I haven't, and don't, check the contributions of those I am banned from interacting. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::...with. ] (]) 07:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose removal''' as the other party opposes the lifting of the ban, and also ] says {{tq|Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other}}, so I don't see how Sir Joseph's stated reason for lifting the ban, {{tq|we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't}} is valid as he can still comment on a discussion, just not directly to TB.-- ] (]) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** It prevents him from commenting on discussions started by TB, and it might be understood by some admins as preventing him from commenting on points previously addressed by TB. ] (]) 17:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***No it doesn't. It prevents him from commenting on me (directly or indirectly) or replying to me. ] does not say that he can't comment on RfCs or the like started by me. {{u|Shrike}} (replying to you here), my view is that ] is a really bad essay for IBANs: it'd force me to gather diffs and write out a long explanation of why SJ's behavior towards me is continuing a long trend of thinking everything I do is wrong and going out of his way to comment on me in other forums. I didn't request the original IBAN myself because I thought it'd look bad for an admin to request one from someone who has criticized them, and I'd be pretty unlikely to request it again for the same reasons. That being said, it was very much a relief when someone else proposed it, and I'd rather not have to go back to worrying about him showing up out of the woodwork to say negative things about me.{{pb}}To {{u|Jayron32}}'s point, my understanding of ] is already in line with what he is calling a "reduction". SJ is not prevented from commenting in or on discussions I have already commented in. He has done so on multiple occasions since his IBAN: on community based desysop. He has where I was one of the main opposers. He in the anti-harassment RfC last year, where I also participated before him. He and RfA where I was the nominator. He made at AN after I had blocked the person who started the thread and commented in the thread. on a thread about the SashiRolls ban that I had proposed after it was enacted. in a block review thread I had already commented in.{{pb}}I would be fine with a clarification to Sir Joseph that he is free to take part in discussions that I take part in or start so long as he does not directly or indirectly reference me or reply to me, but he already seems to be aware of this as he's been doing it pretty regularly. ] (]) 19:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****Under what conditions would you support this IBAN being lifted? ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****:{{replyto|TonyBallioni}} I too would like to know under what conditions you would consider supporting the IBAN being lifted? Or a theoretical other one-way iban with you if that is easier to answer. I'm finding it difficult to interpret your view, and thus the merits of the request, without knowing this. ] (]) 00:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****:{{replyto|Thryduulf}} sorry for only getting back to you now. I'll answer it theoretically since I think it's easier to explain that way. I would be open to lifting a one-way IBAN if the the party consents the overwhelming majority of the time, if not always. In cases where the other party doesn't consent, my analysis would go something like this: has an issue been identified where the IBAN is causing undue difficulty for the party who is under it to edit Misplaced Pages productively? If yes, would it be better to extend to two way? If not, does it seem likely the issues would return?{{pb}}If you want me to apply my logic above; it'd stop after the first question. The things Sir Joseph says this IBAN prevents him from doing (commenting on administrative discussions I am present in) is both not actually in line with what IBAN says, but as I pointed out above with diffs, he does regularly anyway, oftentimes disagreeing with where I stand, which is fine.{{pb}}My conclusion based on that is that he wants the IBAN lifted so he can directly comment on me. Given my past experience with Sir Joseph, I'm not exactly confident that he'd do so in a way that wasn't combative/hostile and containing personal attacks. That's something I'd like to avoid. I hope that makes sense. ] (]) 00:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****::Yes that does make sense, thank you. I still need to think a bit before opining on this request but you have made that easier. ] (]) 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose removal''' - I hadn't !voted until now because I was waiting to hear from TonyBallioni. Not knowing that TB was on a Wikibreak, I interpreted his apparent silence as his being OK with removing the IBAN, and since the !voting was going in that direction, I didn't see any purpose in !voting myself. But now that I know that Tony is opposed to removing the ban, I also oppose it, as I would for almost any one-way IBAN in which the victimized editor objects to its being lifted. ] (]) 07:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support removal''' - 17 months with no issues seems long enough for ]. Not a fan of indefinite sanctions with no clear reason why they need to continue. Also not a fan of 1 way ibans either, but that is more a in general thing and not specific to this instance. ] (]) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose removal''' 1 way IBANs should only be removed with the blessing of the user who the affected user cannot interact with, with limited exceptions in case of abuse.] (]) 23:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose removal''' per TB. I'm a very firm believer that sanctions for harassment should not be lifted, ''ever'', over the objection of the victim. Sir Joseph's ''relentless'' harassment of TonyBallioni was beyond the pale, and did not stop after many warnings until the moment they were formally sanctioned. Many editors were calling for Sir Joseph to be sitebanned. As TonyBallioni has explained, the sanction is not actually preventing Sir Joseph from doing anything, so why is he asking for it to be lifted if not to resume his harassment campaign? ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose removal''' — I'd agree that ROPE isn't that great when it comes to IBAN's/harassment. — <span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 12px red; background-color: black; padding: 3px; color: white"><b>]<sup>]</sup></b></span> 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== I need help from an admin - Urgent == | ||
| {{atop|1=I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear Misplaced Pages Team, | |||
| I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help. | |||
| I'm serving a six month ] from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. Does this ban apply to non-EN wiki's? Thank you. ] (]) 00:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Sanctions, blocks and topic bans only apply on the Wiki they were imposed on. Administrative actions on one Wiki have no power on another Wiki unless there has been a global account action. Community bans, which is what was imposed on you, are only effective in the community they were imposed in. Be aware though that another community (i.e. language) may take that you've been topic banned on en-Wiki into account if you happen (not presuming you would) to cause issues there. ] ] 00:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::] - I would advise you, first, to limit your editing to encyclopedias in which you are fluent in the language, and, if you think that you are fluent in a language but are not sure about that, it isn't enough. We have many editors who are not competent in English, and we have a culture of being patient with editors who try to use English with difficulty. Some non-English Wikipedias may not be patient if your command of the language is less than fluent. Second, before you start to edit other Wikipedias, develop a clear and realistic idea of what your mistakes were here that led to your topic ban, and be extra careful to avoid repeating those mistakes. A good record or a less than good record are likely to be taken into account by the English Misplaced Pages in deciding how much to welcome you back when your topic ban is over. ] (]) 03:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I find it disconcerting that an editor who received a topic ban here only after a very extended period of general disruption and discussions in multiple venues, including at ArbCom, is considering taking their behavior patterns to other WMF projects before their topic ban has even been discussed being lifted here. That seems to be an indication that Sandbh has not taken onboard the validity of this community's concern for their editing behavior. Whether this is sufficient for additional sanctions I am not certain, but it is -- as I said -- disturbing.{{pb}}I'm not very familiar with Meta. Is there a venue there in which Sandbh's apparent interest in expanding the scope of their disruptive editing can be brought up? I think it only fair that either other wikis be warned about this, or that Sandbh's topic ban be expanded to be a global one, if such a thing as a global topic ban is possible. ] (]) 21:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree with BMK on this – this kind of query (especially combined with barely editing in the three months since the topic ban was imposed) is definitely raising some large red flags. ] ]] 22:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For what it's worth (not a strict analogy), some indefinitely blocked editors are encouraged to show that they can be productive on other projects under the ] and we've seen some appeals based on the offer declined because they've just waited out the six months. Perhaps a more charitable (or naïve) interpretation from me. ] (]) 22:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The suggestion to edit productively elsewhere is often made to those appealing indef blocks or site bans, but I think that those who are '''''topic banned''''' here are generally advised to productivey edit '''''here''''' in other subject areas, rather than to edit on other wikis in the subject area they are banned from on en.wiki. I think it would be ill-advised and rude on our part to subject our fellow Wikipedians who speak other languages to the possibility of disruptive behavior that we have sanctioned here. ] (]) 01:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah like I said, not a great analogy. But I think our hands are tied: the English Misplaced Pages community only has jurisdiction over English Misplaced Pages and the bans it imposes (to my knowledge, anyways) do not carry over to other projects like Simple etc. It's not something I would personally encourage, but it's hard to see what else can be done. ] (]) 02:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, no one was metaphorically run over or killed. For this level of infraction, you'd get points on your license. If it happened again, you might have to attend safe-driving classes. The Misplaced Pages equivalent might be ], but for some reason they're asking for the death penalty, as if were a vandal troll and irredeemable. Seems a bit much when other options are available.--] (]) 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Which is why I asked if there was someplace on Meta where a possible global sanction could be suggested. '''''We''''' can't do anything, but we are also part of the global WMF community, which, possibly '''''can''''' do something. ] (]) 07:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Making sure that some global Stewards who are familiar with en.wiki are aware of this thread: {{ping|AmandaNP|Bsadowski1|Jon Kolbert|MarcoAurelio|Martin Urbanec|MusikAnimal}}. ] (]) 07:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not sure stewards, especially myself, really have anything to contribute here. -- ] <small>]</small> 13:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::So...one project finds an editor's behavior disruptive enough to topic ban them, the editor threatens to go to other language projects, where, presumably, they'll repeat their behavior pattern, and there's no mechanism by which other projects can at least be warned about this possibility, or the editor officially warned away from potentially disrupting another project? That seems like a hole in the system ripe for exploitation. ] (]) 18:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Speaking for simple the topic ban wouldn't apply there. However, we don't typically give much leeway to people on sanctions from en.wiki as we often get a flood of them when people say go edit elsewhere and proove yourself. As such people on indef blocks/bans here only get one strike there before they are blocked there. Topic bans we don't have an equivalent policy but I suspect we would likely follow suit if they showed the same behaviour there. -] (]) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Many thanks, | |||
| Thank you ]; ]; ]; ] and ] for your prompt and considered responses. For the record, '''1.''' the discussions resulting in my community imposed topic ban occurred at ANI, rather than in multiple venues (I'm happy to be corrected if I have this wrong). '''2.''' Arbcom declined to take on the case, which involved at least two other editors besides myself. '''3.''' I have chosen not to edit much for the past three months, and may well serve out my topic ban here on the same basis. That said I've used my time productively to complete a topic ban related article accepted for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed Journal, drafted a submission for the relevant international body; and have had several productive ongoing discussions via PM and Zoom, with WP colleagues. | |||
| Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read ] prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the issue? ] (]/]) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] probably needs blocking. ] (]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Done}} ] (]/]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant article: | |||
| :*{{al|An Orange from Jaffa}} | |||
| :OP possibly using multiple accounts: | |||
| :*{{checkUser|Mohamugha1}} | |||
| :*{{checkUser|MohammedAlmughanni}} | |||
| :] (]) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{noping|MohammedAlmughanni}} blocked as a sock. ] (]/]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian == | |||
| It was interesting to read ] and the {{tl|2nd chance}} procedure; kudos to ] for mentioning those. | |||
| {{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. ] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == EncycloDeterminate unblocked == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved that: | |||
| If I have anything further to say about Beyond my Ken's responses, I will do so at their talk page. ] (]) 22:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox|1=Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of {{Userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}}, as it is no longer necessary.}} | |||
| :Please don't be deliberately specious. The discussions about disruption in the subject area of the chemical elements -- of which your behavior was very much a part -- took place in multiple venues. That they ended up with a TB for you, decided as the result of an ANI thread, doesn't mean that the prior discussions didn't take place, nor does it mean that the topic ban wasn't the result of the totality of '''''all''''' the discussions.{{pb}}I will not accept any comments from you about this subject at my talk page. If you have anything to say, you'd best say it here. ] (]) 03:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (] • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|EncycloDeterminate unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == Permission request == | |||
| Yes, to clear up any confusion, while the discussions that led to my TB occurred at ANI they were informed by edits and actions that occurred mainly at WP:ELEM and ]. | |||
| {{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I expect the non-en editors will be able to judge the calibre and appropriateness of my contribution. I further expect I will have nothing more to contribute to this current thread. ] (]) 22:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for ] editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you ] (]) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Having glanced at their most recent contributions, I'm also a bit concerned that the OP appears to be making proxy edits at the request of an article subject (]), based on apparent off-wiki requests. ] (]) 00:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I participated in some of the previous ANIs regarding Sandbh. At least until the last one, where that I decided to take at least the twelve days of Christmas off WP, so I didn't appear at the ANI thread. Currently I am back and ] seems to be functioning just fine; article work is being done, and no one seems to be wanting to take anyone else to ANI for the last two months. | |||
| Sandbh went to de.wp after this thread to discuss the same topic that had started the whole issue back here at ]: the composition of group 3 of the periodic table. The discussion is at ]. I was already there, since I got invited on my talk page by ] (who wanted to know where the en.wp discussion for this took place). The decision that de.wp decides on isn't the most important thing for me, since it's not my home-wiki (I speak the language to some extent, but I mostly edit here): it's for that community to decide first of all. I suppose we shall have to wait and see what happens in July when his TBAN expires here. ] (]) 09:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Like others who have posted here, I was a bit concerned about {{u|Sandbh}} editing on other wikis in his banned topic area rather than editing on this wiki in non-banned topic areas. But to be fair, before doing so, he came here first to ask whether he could or not. He could have simply researched this issue, come to the same conclusion, and then begun editing. IMO his choosing to ask should be commended and not characterized by saying he "threatens to go to other language projects". Asking a question does not constitute making a threat, and IMO 'threatens' is a loaded word that seems to fail ]. In response to this, Sandbh did not immediately fire back in the same venue (as was his wont a few months ago), but IMO wisely considered discussing the situation in user talk space. Would that discussion have been civil? Alas we will never know, because the discussion was declined. This, too, was no doubt a wise action, but it means that we cannot yet learn to what extent he has learned his lesson. ] (]) 05:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with {{u|YBG}}. ] (]) 06:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *First, ], as others have noted above, your en-wiki topic ban does not restrict your editing on other wikis in any way. However, whether it is a good idea for you to edit on the same topic on German Misplaced Pages is another matter. IMO, it is not a good idea. Once your topic ban expires here, if the problems that led to the topic ban continue, it can be extended and even made indefinite. In any such future discussion what you were doing while t-ban was in effect may be a consideration. Again, IMO it would be much better for you to develop a record of editing here on en-wiki on other topics in the meantime, instead of going to other wikis and editing there on the same topic from which you are t-banned here. Not only will that look better for you later, but, once your t-ban expires here, you would not be boxed in into continuing editing just on that single topic. Second, I want to revisit the concern raised by Symmachus Auxiliarus above regarding your apparent proxy edits to ]. Several of your edit summaries indicate that you were acting based on off-wiki requests of the subject of the article. Note that if you know the subject of the article personally, you yourself have a ] with respect to the article and should not edit the article directly. Moreover, even if the subject of the article somehow contacted you at random, COI requests should still be made and discussed at the article's talk page, via ], before being incorporated into the article. ] (]) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock request by Misplaced Pages Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson == | |||
| I'm happy to participate in the Misplaced Pages community while complying with the Terms of Service. Please let me know what I'd need to do to meet those as a Paid Editor. I remain open to learning more about how to operate this way within the Misplaced Pages ecosystem. | |||
| It is ultimately my goal to help Misplaced Pages articles remain factual, which is why many people choose to work directly with me. | |||
| I'm posting this to gain a better understanding of what caused me to get blocked from editing on Misplaced Pages, and the activity that's since occurred (]). | |||
| It would be helpful for me to get clarification on some points around how Misplaced Pages operates so I can better follow guidelines going forth. Here's some initial ones: | |||
| * Why wasn't this article (]) considered notable by Misplaced Pages standards? | |||
| * Can you also please clarify what Misplaced Pages considers as a consensus and how many editors need to be involved before one is reached? | |||
| * Lastly, there has been at least 8 articles I’ve participated in that have now been nominated for deletion – one of these going back to 2011 (of which my involvement was minimal). What’s the reasoning here? | |||
| I look forward to hearing about how to best move forward. ] (]) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm finding it hard to believe that you have edited here more than 10 years and you've never been directed to ], ] or ] previously. ]] 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I mean your questions don't seem directly relevant to why you were blocked (although I'd also note that the block reason doesn't seem either fully accurate or fully complete). Not all of your work was "advertising or promotion", however, you were also repeatedly not complying with utilising AfC etc. After you not using it was disputed once, then it would move from the "very strongly advised" to "required". The AfDs (which I would imagine did come from the nom looking at your additions in the listed thread) do have their reasoning provided. Mainly notability, with some excabating factors like promotional content, which alone I wouldn't view as sufficient to delete. ] (]) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** One suggestion is to stop using buzzwords like "ecosystem" instead of writing precise sentences that don't use cute euphemisms you read somewhere and thought it would be fun to adopt. I am a volunteer editor here in large measure to try to eradicate this kind of marketing-ese PR balderdash from encyclopedia articles that students and other people who aren't professional writers look to as exemplars of acceptable common parlance. "Silo", "solutions", "pivot", and "ecosystem", used outside their specific agricultural, chemical, physics, and biology contexts, are the first examples that are immediately jumping into my mind, along with "impact" as a substitute for the verb "to affect" and the noun "effect" that apparently people have decided are too difficult to use correctly. (If there's not a physical striking, there's not an "impact"; there's an "effect." It's not that hard.) I don't believe I'm alone in this philosophy. Thanks for taking this to heart. - ''']''' '']'' 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***What about the "Environmental Impact Statement"? The OED says "The phrasal verb impact on, as in when produce is lost, it always impacts on the bottom line, has been in the language since the 1960s. Many people disapprove of it despite its relative frequency, saying that make an impact on or other equivalent wordings should be used instead. New formations of verbs from nouns (as in the case of impact) are often regarded as somehow inferior." I think the water is well under the bridge on the use of "impact" in the way that you disdain, considering it's been going on for about 50 years now. And, yes, the rules about "affect" and "effect" '''''are''''' difficult to remember, so avoiding them to avoid pedantic criticism is reasonable.{{pb}}Your larger point is sorta valid, but I see no reason that "pivot" can't be used about a corporation in the same way that it's often used about a second baseman, or as an instruction to a dancer. ] (]) 00:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****These are perfectly reasonable points. Re: the "environmental impact statement": I have no problem with that usage; an ''impact'' is ''physical'', and dumping a bunch of paraquat into a wetland is as physically ''impactful'' as a meteorite strike. Re: "pivot", the dancer and second baseman are indeed physically making turns on an axis; a business entity, though, which by definition is not a natural person capable of engaging in a physical action, may take up a new business strategy very quickly, but it doesn't have quadriceps and the only way it "pivots" is in a TED Talk. And re: the positive effect this talk has had on my affect, anybody who is capable of recognizing more or less instinctively, ''e.g.,'' what happens when a baseball gets lodged in the ivy at Wrigley Field, or alternately in a catcher's mask or other paraphernalia, and/or of explaining the infield-fly rule, has more than enough candlepower to learn "affect" and "effect"... It's the uncritical American-business-school-ese, and the privilege-loaded baggage that goes along with it, that makes me tetchy. Misplaced Pages editors are, possibly, on the precipice of becoming the ''de facto'' "usage panel" of some international agglomeration of national English varieties, simply because we are ''free'' (and ubiquitous, thanks to Google, augh) and hence more accessible in, ''e.g.,'' Odisha and Eswatini and Tristan da Cunha than is the OED. But this must necessarily be a conversation for another day (and forum). Onward and upward! Thank you, BMK! Holy cow! - ''']''' '']'' 00:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Convert Block to Site Ban=== | |||
| Having read the discussion on the appellant's talk page, I have come to the unpleasant conclusion that the appellant either doesn't understand and isn't about to understand, or does understand and thinks that our rules are for other editors. I recommend that the community convert the administrator block to a six-month '''Site Ban'''. The question about why Neil Krug isn't notable illustrates exactly why we insist that paid editors use ]. Notability isn't the only concern; neutrality also is. Allowing paid editors to move non-neutral articles into article space would show non-neutral articles to our readers, who trust that ] is the ], and would create extra work for volunteers to clean them up. This editor is creating too much work to clean up their mess. | |||
| *'''Support''' '''Site-Ban''' as proposer. ] (]) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Technically if the Community denies the appeal it automatically converts to a siteban unless we specifically exempt it. I don't see any particular reason why this can't be handled under an admin block, however ] (]) 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The difference is that unless determined specifically to be a site ban, another admin can unilaterally lift the indef block if they deem there is an exigent reason for doing so - whether or not the appeal was denied.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 16:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think Nosebagbear's point is if this appeal received due consideration from the community and fails, it is a site ban unless we specifically say it shouldn't be treated as such. ] is quite clear that '{{tqi|Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community".}}' ] (]) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The section above is appealing a partial block: does a denied or no-consensus result convert into an indefinite ban from the affected portion of the block? –]] 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'd say yes; I think that passage is meant to say that admins shouldn't unilaterally lift a block that the community has specifically said it thinks is correct. I think that interpretation also jives with how we've been applying it here recently where we've considered and retained blocks but also found a consensus to not apply this clause for whatever reason. I'll dig through the archives later, but I think that happened in the case of some quasi-third-party appeals. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Site-Ban ''' per Robert. --<b>] ]</b> 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure why moving to site ban would be required where the editor is already constrained from article space in the status quo - {{u|Robert McClenon}}: are you suggesting the incident editor's contributions to non-article namespaces should also be banned by the community? –]] 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This seems moot, given that an unsuccessful block appeal to AN becomes a ban anyway, but ignoring that I'd rather give the editor time to show that they understand and can abide by editing restrictions. Blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive, as it only creates demand for those who don't.I'm far from convinced from Jacobmcpherson's responses that they will follow them, but I would have liked to have had time to find out. - ] (]) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Site-Ban''' per above rationalization, and when I read a paid editor writing stuff like "] Hang on, so now it's about "how the subject of the article would like to be represented"? Seriously? That's not how things work, one of this guy's clients thinks that because he ''paid'' for editing that his interests override that of the community? ] (]) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Not sure where this fits in, but I started a conversation on the talk page of an article. My understanding is its preferred a Paid Editor requests changes in this forum going forward? ] ] (]) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I think they should request edits on the article talk page, not here at AN. ] (]) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - My reason for proposing a site-ban was to ensure that this single-admin block is not subsequently lifted by a single admin acting in good faith on a bad-faith request. I will also comment on two points by ]. I may have overlooked or forgotten the rules that an unsuccessful block appeal is a de facto ban, and that makes my concern less urgent. Second, Bilby says, and I agree, that blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive. Jm has been ignoring the rules for years, either through ignorance or because they are for other people, and I have no reason to believe that they suddenly want to be a good paid editor. (I personally think that there are no good paid editors, only neutral ones and bad ones, but that is only my opinion.) ] (]) 16:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose site ban''' as inappropriate (and at least premature): All new editors require guidance to develop adherence to site purpose. If the practice is to move to banning disclosed paid editors because they took a few missteps and need assistance complying with site purpose, the obvious result will be an increase in undisclosed paid editing. The problem with shifting the balance to undisclosed paid editing is it causes a much greater editorial and administrative overhead. Edits by disclosed paid editors can be very easily monitored and tracked. Addressing undisclosed paid editing requires off-wiki sleuthing, trawling microwork sites, issuing take-down notices, administrator and Arbitration Committee involvement, editor investigations of contributor's personally identifying information, and a custom checkuser queue almost no one wants to work (with a backlog that often breaks 100 - | |||
| ::* This is '''not a new editor''', this dude's BS is what you call taking the piss. ] (]) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{U|Risker}}, can you update?). <p> (Disclosure: I modified the discussed editor's block to allow non-article space editing; see ]). –]] 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: Per {{u|Xeno}}'s request - there are currently 95 tickets in the "Paid editing" queue on OTRS. Without researching or commenting on the specifics of this matter, I agree with Xeno that driving paid editing underground completely is not really in the best interests of the project. Further, given the fact that the Terms of Use specifically envision a process whereby paid editors can and should disclose, it seems pretty obvious that banning paid editing outright would be an issue in and of itself. Remember that we do have respected users who would meet the definition of paid editing by virtue of their publicly revealed work as a Wikimedians in residence or in similar roles. It's not particularly helpful to drive paid editing completely underground, because then everyone (and I do mean everyone) becomes a suspect. ] (]) 17:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Oppose, this is a kneejerk reaction. He's only partially blocked as it stands and we allow paid editing. He is discussing proper editing and disclosure. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>] 00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Appeal of partial block from article space by Misplaced Pages Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson=== | |||
| I'm afraid I didn't give the original blocked editor clear enough guidance. This section should hopefully be more focused. <p> {{u|Jacobmcpherson}} is currently blocked from editing article space by {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}} (who had given leave for me to modify the indefinite block to partial). <p> Presently, the user is requesting the ability to edit article space again. A no-consensus result will result from them remaining blocked from article space with a block remaining modifiable by administrators. A strong decline would (]) result in a community restriction from article space requiring a consensus at AN to reverse. <p> Apart from opposing a site ban, I take no position on the editor's request to lift the partial block. –]] 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the ping, {{u|xeno}}. I also oppose a site ban, and suggest that as a matter of priority we establish a procedure for (a) warning anyone who requests an unblock here to be advised that the outcome may be a community siteban, and (b) allowing withdrawal of that request within a reasonable time of being so advised. | |||
| :In this specific case, I indeffed the editor because of extensive failure to make proper ], aggravated by an ] attitude to our paid-editor guidance. I had no intention that the block should be permanent – provided of course that the editor agreed to comply in full with our policies and guidance for people in his position. He's had plenty of time to do that, but has chosen not to. Instead he has continued to ignore policy – ], for example, is demonstrably less that 100% transparent and clearly in violation of the ]. Xeno, with your agreement, I suggest that the original site-wide indef-block should be re-imposed until and unless this person (a) makes full and complete disclosure of the actual client (who made payment, and on whose behalf) for '''all''' paid edits to date and (b) agrees to comply from now on with our paid-editor guidance '''as if it were policy'''. ] (]) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I meant user page in that statement, and all my paid contributions are disclosed there. ] (]) 18:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{U|Jacobmcpherson}}, what {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}} is saying is in order to fully compliant with paid editing disclosure, one needs to disclose both the ''client'' as well as the ''employer''. It seems only an employer is listed on your user page. Are you able to comply with that understanding? –]] 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|xeno}}, for reasons that I can't discuss here, I fear that even that is ... well, less than fully transparent. ] (]) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. In case it's not 100% clear from my reply to xeno above, or lost in my general wordy blether, firmly oppose unblock from article space, and recommend re-imposition of the original indefinite block until and unless the editor provides full and honest disclosure of all paid edits and the related client and employer. ] (]) 19:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:If the editor resumes paid activities before providing proper disclosure I will undo my modification, or you may. –]] 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I tried my best with the format provided by Misplaced Pages, since the clients listed on my user page all came through the company listed. Please let me know how I can better generate the list. The current parameters don't seem inclusive of all possible paid editing scenarios. I remain open to finding a solution ] (]) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Jacobmcpherson}}: To help clarify, the client that paid for the editing for each article listed on ] was the subject of the article? Perhaps something like <p> <tt><nowiki>* ] (Client: Subject Inc.)</nowiki></tt> | |||
| :::Please also note you must disclose any affiliate partners involved, such as freelance sites. <p> <p> <tt><nowiki>* ] (Client: Subject Inc.; Affiliate: Intermediary Inc.)</nowiki></tt> <p> ({{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}: please advise whether this would resolve your item (a) above.) –]] 19:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm honestly confused by this, did you look at how I disclosed here ]? I don't go through freelance sites for this type of work. ] (]) 20:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Jacobmcpherson}}, You have to disclose where the money came from. For example: I'm Joe Smith, and I form Joe Smith Inc. for my Misplaced Pages business. Joe Smith Inc. gets contracted by 'StarBizPR' on behalf of Bill Actor. I need to write something like 'I edited the 'Bill Actor' article for payment on behalf of StarBizPR via Joe Smith Inc.' ] (]) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The money was paid to the company listed on my user page, and I handled edits/articles for the clients listed ] (]) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{u|Jacobmcpherson}}, Right, but if you were for example an owner of that company, you would not put in your disclosure that you were paid by that company. You'd write where the money came from - if it was directly from the article subject, you would write that. ] (]) 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I see, this wasn't 100% apparent to me in the format provided by Misplaced Pages - as there's various types of organisational structures, and I tried my best to accurately depict my particular scenario / relationship as a paid editor. The other issue, is there doesn't seem to be way to list multiple "articles" from the same "employer" in the current template ]. Hopefully this clarifies my approach to the situation ] (]) 21:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Nevermind, it looks like the template was updated since I last looked - made changes to my user page. Out of curiosity, where I would I participate in discussions around paid editing on Misplaced Pages? I'm really interested in providing valuable input that will hopefully improve the relationship between Misplaced Pages and paid editors ] (]) 21:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|Jacobmcpherson}}: Thank you for ], those appear to have better compliance to the ] policy. These matters are sometimes discussed at ], ]s, this noticeboard, the ], ], and countless other places (look in or search the archives). Have fun digging into wiki-archaeology! Come back after a few megabytes of deep further reading and I'd support a conditional lifting of the partial block with a commitment from you to make a stronger effort to follow the ] policy and conform all contributions to ]. –]] 23:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I will definitely work on my neutral TOV and, if in doubt, know to discuss things in a page's talk page first. I also agree to follow the 5 pillars as a guideline for future editing ] (]) 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' While I don't think an indefinite block is warranted, I do think that the current restriction should remain in place at least for the time being. ] (]) 22:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==No log to record non-AE restriction violations== | |||
| Should there not be something like ] for ] (and for ]), so that an enforcement record can be easily accessible? ] 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds like a very good idea to me. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::When I gave {{noping|JazzClam}} a 2-week {{]}} earlier today, I was thinking: if this was set up like AEL (without a table), I'd likewise just note the block in an indented bulletpoint below the original sanction. I guess the block log records this well enough, but it does preclude logging a warning, for example. ] 20:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, and also that could serve as a central record of the sanctions themselves, and show which ones are still trouble spots. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Possibly, it's never really been too pressing of an issue because RESTRICT violations are so much more infrequent than AE ones...? Still, I'd support a log setup for best recordkeeping practices. Less chance of repeat violations falling through the cracks that way. ] 04:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I guess there isn't much interest in setting up a RESTRICT log, after all. Oh well.{{shrug}} Thanks for the support, though, ]. ] 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{re|El C}} maybe leave this open a bit longer? I support it, just haven't had time to respond. ] ] 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], 4 days later, there still doesn't seem to be that much interest. Oh well. ] 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Capitalization of "Black"== | |||
| There is a dispute between at least two editors and maybe more involving the capitalization of "Black" when it is used as a proper adjective referring to a racial or ethnic group. A dispute request was filed at ] referencing ], but it is not an article content dispute and is not about ]. It is a content dispute that may apply to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages, because we have at least tens of thousands of biographies of such people. It is a ] dispute that should be resolved by a ] about capitalization standards. One editor is complaining that they are being ] or ]. I see no evidence of hounding; complaints of hounding are more common than actual hounding. | |||
| Notifying ] and ]. | |||
| I am not requesting any particular administrative action at this time except administrative awareness that this dispute, which should be resolved at ], may call for reminders of the need for ]. | |||
| ] (]) 01:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :There was in fact a recently closed RfC on this very question that is relevant here, ]. ] (]) 02:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, ] and ] (as closer). ] (]) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not accept this resolution. The issue is one of proper English construction, and yet I am being ignored. The rules of English are clear that only proper nouns are capitalized, and black is not a proper noun. As further proof of this, white is not capitalized, ergo black cannot be as well. Asian is because Asia is a <s>country</s> continent, and thus a proper noun. As to harassment, my claim and evidence has been submitted, as the referenced used, Generalrelative, continues to stalk my work and try to erase my edits. - Blaugraf <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::''Asian is because Asia is a country...'' | |||
| :::Well, that's going to come as a big surprise to people in China, Japan, and India. --] | ] 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For those confused about the above comment, note that BlauGraf modified their initial comment almost an hour after this reply while leaving no indication they had done so. ] (]) 04:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Note that they also . {{u|BlauGraf}}, do '''not''' change other people's posts. This violates ]. ] (]) 06:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Good catch, {{u|BlackcurrantTea}}. I'll just ping {{u|Robert McClenon}} here in case he wants to restore his original comment. And while I don't want to pile on, I will note that {{u|BlauGraf}} also removed a comment I made on my own talk page when leaving a comment of their own: A small thing in and of itself but if it's part of a larger pattern that could be a problem. ] (]) 20:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you, ], ]. My original comment had only been ridiculing ] for a silly error that they compounded by trying to alter the past. I see no need at this point to restore it, but altering another editor's comment on a talk page is not a small thing in and of itself. It is fraud, and it violates far older rules than the so-called rules of English that are older than the English language. It is not a small thing. ] (]) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::<small>Thank you, {{u|Generalrelative}}; {{u|Robert McClenon}}, sorry for not pinging you. I was distracted when I posted, and simply forgot. ] (]) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::] - The failure to ping me is a minute thing. It was the alteration of my words that was not a small thing. ] (]) 04:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, and the "rules of English" are descriptive, not prescriptive -- or did I overlook the existence of an International English Academy which enforces the rules? --] | ] 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's also a more recent discussion (from February, the RFC was from December) about how the results of the RFC should be formalized in the MOS. See: ]. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Given ] behavior and rhetoric, I'm not sure if I need to weigh in here at all. Still, perhaps against my better judgment, here goes: | |||
| ::::This user is not being ignored, as they claim. They are in fact being treated with an abundance of ] not only by ] but also by two members of the Arbitration Committee: . I too have been treating them with ], explaining my rationale for reverting their efforts to contravene ] in edit summaries (, ) and on my talk page: . Note too that I was not the only editor to revert them here: , though I was the one to leave a template warning for edit warring and a follow-up on their talk page, which have since been deleted: . | |||
| ::::They have also not been ignored on the MOS talk page, where I referred them over a week ago: After one final round of edit warring , they did finally post there on the 17th () and were offered a very patient explanation as to why they are wrong by ]: | |||
| ::::Re. the accusation of hounding, this user appears to think that because we are active on some of the same pages it means that all of this activity comes from me watching their contribution history. I did check this history after realizing that they were edit warring over style at ] and was concerned about {{tq|related problems on multiple articles}} (an acceptable use of contrib history per ]). But it was entirely coincidental that I was also involved in reverting an earlier wave of edits this user made back in January, when they were pushing the ] and in other ways white-washing Nazi-related topics. For the very civil discussion we had about this back in January, see this deleted thread from their talk page: . | |||
| ::::As to their stated unwillingness to accept the RfC, I will leave it to others to judge. ] (]) 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't know whether to be annoyed or amused or both by the assertion that "Asian" is capitalized because ] <ins>was said to be a country</ins>. ] (]) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes. Obviously, we should write "irish", "zimbabwean", and "canadian", since Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Canada aren't continents. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 04:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Good lord, such obvious mistakes shouldn't be the subject of extended discussion. For the record, you have it lucky in English: in French, it's a fair bit more complex - it's minuscule except when the word is explicitly referring to an ethnicity/nationality and it is a noun (so "Les Français parlent en français avec leurs amis français":"The French speak in rench{{efn|Noun, but not a nationality}} with their rench{{efn|Nationality, but not noun}} friends")... ] (] / ]) 02:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{noteslist}} | |||
| :There is no reason to be offended - Asia is a proper noun as it is a continent (and thus proper). Non-proper nouns are not capitalized. However, it is very apparent that this collective organization has seen fit to disregard the apparent rules of English construction. As for the reference that I was responded to, that is correct at its base, but fails to take into account that the response received was improper, and no one has actually accepted the fact that colors are not capitalized, where proper nouns are. However, as this seems to be something that you, collectively, are pushing, I cannot be heard. | |||
| :Secondly, there is reference to an edit made on a page relating to the German Army. My family served in the Army, and I will not discuss that further, since your anti-German slant is quite apparent. I will correct a mis-statement: nothing I corrected was related to the Nazis, it was relating to the German Army. The Army may have served when the Nazis ruled, but not all soldiers were nazis, in the same way now that every American did not become a democrat when Biden was elected, and the American Army now is not the Democratic Army. Do you see the correlation? | |||
| :It is quite obvious you wish to push some sort of hatred, and so I will do my best to continue to remain within my fields of expertise. I do ask that the generalrelative person be banned from editing any of my articles. His harassment has not ceased. - Blaugraf | |||
| ::{{re|BlauGraf}} This isn't a Misplaced Pages thing. You seem to have missed the general movement to capitalize Black. article which explains it is one example, but far from the only one. Sometimes it is surprising to find out that something you thought was correct is no longer correct. I remember noticing one day that newscasters had moved from pronouncing Kiev as KEY-ev to KEEV. Similary I discovered that what I had always known as Rangoon was now generally known as ]. Things change. You'll get used to it. ] (]) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I respectfully disagree. Just because a left-leaning newspaper begins to do something that is popular, doesn't make it right. The Russian Revolution was popular, as were the Nazis - and neither were right. Language does not change just because some people want it to. They have to conform to the rules, that is why we have rules. I learned this language 31 years ago when we came here from East Germany. ] (]) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf | |||
| ::::Actually, language does change because some people want it to. That's exactly how language changes. I guarantee some of what you learned 31 years ago is no longer considered correct usage, but you probably just accepted those changes without any fuss. If you want to have a political argument, Misplaced Pages is the wrong site for it. On the other hand, if you just like dogmatic application of rules, there are several Wikiprojects were you will feel at home. ] (]) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Small aside to {{ping|BlauGraf}} - please sign your talk page posts using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) and also ensure your signature complies with ]. ]] 16:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :My apologies, I thought I was doing so correctly. ] (]) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf | |||
| ::By the way, this is a capitalization and ] dispute, and ] apply under ]. ] (]) 21:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The short version: The RfC concluded with a clear consensus against "Black but white", both for NPOV reasons and consistency reasons, but did not come to a consensus in favor of "Black and White" over "black and white" or vice versa. So, as before the RfC, that is left to editorial judgment at a particular article. The only firm result was to not use one capitalized and the other not, in the same article/category/list/context (see ], ]).<!-- | |||
| --><p>The main argument for capitalizing both is that they are serving the function of proper names, as demonyms. The main argument for lower-casing is that they are not {{em|consistently}} capitalized in contemporary reliable sources, so the first rule of ] (don't capitalize that which sources don't consistently capitalize) should apply. Neither of them are poor arguments, and it is often not possible for us to arrive at 100% consistency with all style guidelines, because they can sometimes produce "conflicting consistencies", as it were (in this case, consistency with proper naming vs. consistency with lower-casing when in doubt). I will note that ] would not allow us to lower-case a trademark (a proper name) like "]" to match its logo (which looks like "macy<sup><small>★</small></sup>s") just because the company liked it that way. I.e., the interaction of MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS is to go with the upper-case consistency of proper names in English, not with the lower-casing consistency of "things not always capitalized in sources". But the proper-name argument about ethno-racial "color labels" isn't as strong as it is with regard to trademarks. In the end, we may simply need to add "(sometimes capitalized)" to the lead of the article on the term, if we're generally treating it lower-case, or "(sometimes not capitalized)" if the other way around. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 04:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)</p><!-- | |||
| --><p>PS: The claim that there's a general trend across English to capitalize "Black", in isolation, is simply not true. ''Associated Press Stylebook'' does this, so various US newspapers that follow it also do so. Some others have independently started doing it, too. However, ''The Washington Post'' capitalizes "Black" and "White", as do various others (some of which have been doing so since at least the 1980s). And yet others are sticking with lower-case across the board, especially non-US publications. Of those that use "Black but white", the vast majority of them are American. The style is an Americanism, a recentism, and a leftism all at once. This is not a new question/debate, it's simply become a louder one over the last year, and one that is not any closer to resolution than it was a generation ago. Probably further from resolution, actually, because the growing trend to capitalize both has been somewhat upset by sudden activism to capitalize only one of them. That it {{em|is}} socio-political activism (i.e., a ] and ] problem) is immediately apparent from the statements issued by the news organizations that chose to go with "Black but white" and put out a statement about it. Anyway, all of this is just rehash, since it all already covered in detail at the RfC and discussion surrounding it.</p><!-- | |||
| --><p>'''To the extent there's an administrative matter:''' Blaugraf should be warned away from making ]-style arguments about what "is" "correct" in English (which has no official rules or rule-making body, unlike continental French and Spanish). How to write English on Misplaced Pages is determined by consensus in the MoS guidelines; it's why they exist. Personal dissatisfaction with a line-item in it here and there is something everyone at WP lives with (0% of editors agree with 100% of it, or any other guideline or policy for that matter). The last time we had someone pursuing this kind of "English must be written the way I say it must" stuff about an MoS matter, it led to a great deal of disruption, then a topic-ban, then a broader t-ban, then a block, then an indefinite block (mostly via ]). Let's not go there again. But others involved need to be pointed to ]. An ] attitude is not a rationale; have a discussion on the talk page about whether to use "black" or "Black" in that context (the the RfC result is a consensus that either are permissible, if used consistently), and remember that if it's "Black" then it also means using "White", and "black" means using "white" (in the ethno-racial senses). If anyone seems hellbent on editwarring and other disruption, leave {{tlsx|Ds/alert|mos}} on their talk page, and thereafter it can be more expediently addressed at AE, if it continues.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :::] - Thank you for explaining that the reason for capitalizing Black and White is that they are being used as demonyms, and that whether that is "correct" or "incorrect" is outside the scope of this discussion. (But dishonestly altering a talk page post is not outside the scope of this discussion.) ] (]) 21:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not sure what the last part refers to; there're probably aspects of this disputation that I've glossed over. I should be clear that I advocated at least mildly in the original RfC on this to prefer "Black and White", relying on the demonym rationale. I see that rationale in play across the site regularly. E.g., while I was editing animal breed articles, as is my wont, and going over the ] and ] articles in particular (which have different capitalization because of what the formal name of the standardized breed is, i.e., does it or does it not include the species word at the end?), and I noticed that ], the article on the human culture namesake, was not capitalizing ''cracker''. This stuck me as weird. (More on that in a moment.) Looking around further, I see that many similar epithets {{em|are}} capitalized. E.g., ] is usually capitalized, as just one example. Another is that '']'', in the southern African mixed-race ethnic sense, is almost universally capitalized. The more I look, the more I see a norm toward capitalization of such informal demonyms. Though in the course of looking, I do also come across additional exception like the ''cracker'' case. However, even that is not consistent and doesn't seem to represent a consensus. At the closely related ] article, it's obvious that this was originally written capitalized (most of the article still is) then later moved to lower-case by someone, without any apparent discussion (there is no RM thread about this at either ] or ]). This overall "capitalize them as (or serving as if) proper names" trend is why I've drafted language for MoS to this effect, at ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|SMcCandlish}} a point so minor that it almost isn't worth mentioning – "Kiwi" is a noun, and so wouldn't exactly be comparable to adjectives like "white" and "black". You can be "a Kiwi", but no one is "a White", which probably effects whether or not people choose to capitalize it. ] (]) 06:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nah. All these terms are regularly used as nouns and as adjectives: "his cute Kiwi accent", "police violence against Blacks and other minorities". Which terms are more apt to be used which way, which ones more often appear as singular nouns, etc., varies by term and dialect. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I apologize - I am only getting back to this after a long weekend. I edited something because I saw I had made a glaring mistake in my haste to type a response (typing country instead of continent). I do not understand why this generalrelative fellow wishes to ascribe some heinous motives to me, but it was exactly that - an error. I fixed it, and moved on. This is the indicative of the type of harassment I have been referring to herein. I wish to be left along by him, and yet he is intentionally trying to cast me as some villain. ] (]) 12:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf | |||
| :::{{u|BlauGraf}}, when you say {{tq|trying to cast me as some villain}}, what specifically are you referring to? Believe it or not, throughout our interaction history, my goal has been to balance ] on your part and protecting Misplaced Pages from disruption. | |||
| :::And while it's nice that you've apologized, your response here makes it seem as though you do not recognize that it isn't okay to alter a comment after someone else has replied to it. This is even clearer on your talk page, where {{u|Nil Einne}} was kind enough to explain to you that our ] require you to {{tq|make sure you give a clear indication you have changed your comments if someone has already replied, especially when someone directly quoted something you said which are are modifying.}} Your response was to say {{tq|I recognized a glaring error in typing, in my haste to make a reply, and I fixed it. The error was mine, and I corrected same. I am not sure what you are saying.}} No one is concerned about the error, but rather with the cover-up. And neither here nor there have you addressed {{u|Robert McClenon}}'s concern about the fact that you altered ''his'' comment, which as he rightly points out {{tq|is not a small thing.}} ] (]) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah {{replyto|BlauGraf}}. Rules aside, I think basic human etiquette would suggest it's a problem if you correct a mistake which someone has already commented on without making it clear you did so. When you do that, it means to the casual observer, it looks like the other person is the one who made the mistake, not you. Per ], I might assume you simply didn't notice that someone had replied to your comment. Except that you also modified someone else's comment. This makes it hard to assume you didn't notice people had replied, and it's an even worse problem. You need to take very great care when modifying someone's signed comment, there are a few limited cases and ways where this is acceptable, but this was very far from one of them. In this case, ] has explained that they too were commenting on your error. Indeed, I actually read their comment around the time of my first reply, and I did not properly understand it precisely because you had already modified their comment, so it said something which is not what they actually said. You put words into their mouth so to speak, again basic human etiquette should tell you how wrong this is. You made a mistake. People may have made fun of you for it, but it's not a big deal. We all make mistakes. For some reason, instead of just acknowledging you made a mistake, you tried to re-write history which is why this is a big deal. You aren't being harassed. You are making major mistakes and then just brushing editor's aside when they tell you you did so. (Let me repeat the major mistake is not that you wrote country instead of continent which probably we all would have forgotten about by now and we definitely wouldn't care about. The major mistake is that you tried to make it seem like you didn't do so after people had already pointed out you did.) ] (]) 16:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Side comment: If you feel a need to substantively change your own post after others have replied to it, try striking the "bad" material with {{tag|del}} and adding the replacement text with {{tag|ins}}. Such revision markup is why those HTML elements exist. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal to Close with Warning=== | |||
| I originally said that I was not requesting administrative action. Then ] altered my words (in a way that made them not make any sense). I am now proposing that this discussion be closed with the only action being a warning that any future violations of ], even if they seem minor, may result in a block or other sanctions. Any discussion of the capitalization of demonyms can take place elsewhere. | |||
| ] (]) 06:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I take umbrage at your suggestion, sir. I edited a mistake that I MADE, and I corrected. The mistake was mine, and I corrected it. You are acting as if I did something heinous, instead of recognizing a glaring oversight on my part - an oversight that you then attempted to malign me for. ] (]) 10:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf | |||
| ::Editing another user's comments is a ''very serious thing'' on Misplaced Pages. You are not being taken to task for editing your own comment (although it's considered poor form to do so after others have responded to it). You are being chided for editing ''someone else's'' comment (namely Robert McClenon's). — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::] - I am acting as if you did something seriously wrong because you did something seriously wrong. You altered my words in order to facilitate your coverup of what had been a minor error on your part. Altering my words, so as to make them make no sense, is not a small thing. That wasn't a mistake on your part. The reason why I am proposing that you be given a warning rather than a block is that blocks in Misplaced Pages are preventive and not punitive. This has its advantages and disadvantages, and one of the disadvantages is that permits flagrant misconduct such as yours to go unpunished, while you try to claim that you should not even be warned. ] (]) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|BlauGraf}} How are someone else's comments your mistake? As long as you continue you speak such silliness, you have little hope of lasting here, that is definitely true. Your user page says you use to work for law enforcement. If someone being questioned said "Asia is a country" and then later an officer comments "You said Asia is a country, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia." then the person being questioned says sorry I meant to say "Asia is a continent"; do you then amend the record so that in the official transcript the first comment is "Asia is a country" with no foot note or any other explanation and the officer's comment becomes "You said Asia is a continent, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia."? If that's accepted practice under US law enforcement, no wonder things are so bad there. I'm fairly sure it's not though, not least because law enforcement officers will be up in arms if they're forced to look like idiots because it's acceptable to amend record to put words into their mouths. ] (]) 04:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It is obvious that you have never worked in law enforcement, so I am simply not going to get into a massive debate here, let me simply turn you towards deposition "errata" sheets, where mistakes are corrected routinely. In this instance, I made a typo that I did not edit, and it was seized upon to insult my intelligence. It is obvious that you and your fellows are attempting to run me off. So I shall simply stop responding. ] (]) 11:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf | |||
| You and your friends seemed determined to drive me from this board, and I am very close to simply leaving, as you wish. However, I will say that the pattern of driving someone away with whom you disagree is frightening, and wrong. ] (]) 18:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf | |||
| : So, to summarize: you did something bad, it has been explained to you very clearly what is wrong with it, and now instead of apologizing you are whining about how it's deeply frightening to be told not to do bad things. I'm sure you will be deeply missed. --] (]) 19:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Review requested: I have blocked Mathsci for three months for IBAN violation == | |||
| In June, 2018 ] (hereafter referred to as "FS") and ] were placed under a ] restriction with each other (see ]). This IBAN remains active (see ]). Since the institution of this IBAN, Mathsci has received the following blocks for violating it: | |||
| # 6 November 2020 by ]: This was an indefinite ban from ] for Mathsci making a series of edits to FS' talk page This block was removed by the blocking admin after assurances were given by Mathsci that they would never post to FS' talk page again. Mathsci has upheld that promise. See ]. | |||
| # 9 November 2020 by ]: This was a 1 week site block resulting from the above 6 November 2020 incident. See also ] | |||
| # 3 February 2021 by ]: This was a 1 month site block. See ]. An unblock request for this block was denied by ]. | |||
| On 17 March 2021, Mathsci made which made direct reference to . ] notes "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly;" This edit by Mathsci was in my opinion a clear violation of the IBAN, as it directly commented on an edit by FS. I raised issue with this on Mathsci's talk page, and gave a very sternly worded final warning to Mathsci regarding violating the IBAN. See ]. In that final warning, I warned Mathsci that any further violations would result in a three month block. | |||
| Today at 04:25 UTC, FS made that added a {{tl|nowrap}} to two locations in a translation. At 05:03 UTC today (less than an hour later), Mathsci the {{tl|nowrap}}s placed by FS. ] notes "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" This edit by Mathsci is, in my opinion, an unequivocal bright line violation of the IBAN. | |||
| Accordingly, and per the final warning I noted above, I have blocked Mathsci for three months for violating the IBAN . I invite feedback from other administrators regarding this block and my handling of the situation. If another administrator feels the block is inappropriate they are welcome to shorten or eliminate the block if they feel it necessary to do so without further consultation with me. Thank you, --] (]) 18:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Unfortunately it may be time for an indef. Disruptive editing has gone on for a long time despite several warnings and blocks. Good block. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 19:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:As I've pointed out on Mathsci's TP, FS should also/instead get blocked - he's also on a similarly sliding slope of seemingly unending disruption with Mathsci AND other editors. ] (] / ]) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I have placed a warning on FS' talk page at ] regarding the IBAN violation. Whether or not FS made an edit that affected Mathsci's edit is no excuse for Mathsci to effectively revert FS' edit. ] makes no allowances for such cases. I have not blocked FS for this incident. However, I don't think blocking FS for it would be entirely inappropriate either. There's a narrow window within the IBAN policy that could be construed as allowing the edit, as FS' edit did not undo Mathsci's edit , whereas Mathsci's edit clearly undid FS' . --] (]) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I've ne'er been a big fan of technicalities. For background (for others) ]. Also, I don't think we should be extending "benefit of doubt" to established editors over technicalities - they should know better; and it's not like the problem between FS and Mathsci is something that begun today (and also per ]). FS also seems to have a propensity for, exactly, arguing technicalities: saying that ] somehow isn't a "content fork" while it's basically a slightly modified copy of ] is very much too close, to my taste, to something like ]... ] (] / ]) 20:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Without seeming to be ominous (I'm not), FS' actions are not going without notice. It is important to understand that FS' actions are irrespective of Mathsci's. Mathsci isn't responsible for FS' actions nor vice versa. If one or both violate policies, guidelines, or sanctions, I am confident appropriate actions will be taken. I believe in this case that Mathsci's actions created a bright line, unequivocal violation of the IBAN with FS. This is why I took the action that I did. FS' actions do not provide an excuse under which Mathsci can act. ] isn't written that way, nor should it be. If it were, it would create a situation where edit warring was accepted under an IBAN so long as the person who did it was under the IBAN with the person with whom they were edit warring. --] (]) 20:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *This is a perennial problem, with those two, yes, but also with the IBAN model itself, overall, especially when it involves a relatively narrow scope of articles, where the IABAN'd editors are therefore more likely to meet (if not greet). Recently seen the acrimony it still didn't prevent from rising to the fore with the Newimpartial and the now indeffed Lilipo25 IBAN, for example. But how to get around that challenge? | |||
| :To that: a few years back, I tried to account for that problematic with a custom DS (GMO) IBAN for Tryptofish and SashiRolls, which also added a 2nd-edit page prohibition (which ended up giving Tryptofish a huge advantage, since they began editing many of the affected pages first). The sanction was overturned soon thereafter, anyway, for unrelated reasons (of which I am largely unfamiliar with to this day), or rather, converted into a normal IBAN, but one-way against SR. Anyway, regardless, in hindsight, I later recognized that this custom page-level IBAN was a poorly-formed idea on my part. Sorry, this is probably not helping much. In any case, it's a conundrum. ] 20:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't think that an IBAN is an effective tool in situations such as this. Both FS and Mathsci are heavily involved in classical music areas of interest on the project. They are dancing on the same floor in close proximity to each other. They ''are'' going to bump into each other and cause an IBAN violation. My concern with ''this'' incident is that Mathsci's edit came so close on the heels of FS' edit, and clearly undid what FS has done. I can't think that was anything other than intentional. I also do not think that a topic ban would work in this case either. I'm open to suggestions on what we could do instead in this case. --] (]) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree that in this case the IBAN is showing itself to be very much de facto ineffective. Short of the almighty ], a topic ban would be the logical next step (even if that would mean we'd lose 2 valuable contributors in an area - then again ]); but then this has been going on for far too long... A real conundrum, as El C states. ] (] / ]) 20:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As {{no ping|Hammersoft}} noted, when the editors in question have been utterly ignoring their IBAN as though it never existed, there's no reason to expect that a TBAN would be treated any differently. ] (] · ]) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At least a TBAN has much less grey areas. "Classical music (in the usual broad or even in a very broad sense), broadly construed" is much harder to claim technicalities than "technically didn't alter the other's edits". Then if we have ]... ] (] / ]) 00:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''endorse block''' regrettable but inevitable. We need the expertise, but not at the price of the melodrama. No call on whether FS should be blocked as well. I wish people who have so much to offer could get along and not fight. What a waste. --<b>] ]</b> 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''endorse''' {{non admin comment}} very regrettably as per ], but this seems to be correct enforcement of an interaction ban (even if it was on a minor, if clear cut, infraction) and there's no sign that further disruptive behaviour between these two editors which we're trying to ] would stop at this stage. ] (] / ]) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''''Pianissimo''''' At their recent RfA, Hammersoft said that their username was an "''intentional oxymoron. Imagine lightly tapping with a hammer...''". But a three-month block from all of Misplaced Pages seems to be quite a heavy blow. Please consider that there is now an option to make a partial block and this seems to be appropriate when editors are treading on each other's toes in particular places. In this case, Mathsci was breathing down FS's neck at ]. Why not give Mathsci an indefinite block from that article alone? If they should seem to follow FS to another such article then block them from that one too and so on. If the parties observe a creeping limitation of their access to such articles, then they may learn to be more circumspect. See also ]. ]🐉(]) 09:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:We have been proportional. The community should not need to mollycoddle editors who want to edit here. Mathsci has already had lots of chances and warnings. They've already gone through a series of escalating blocks and found their editing completely restricted for periods, but seem to have failed to learn anything from it. So frankly it's getting to the stage where it's becoming apparent they seem incapable of learning "to be more circumspect" and there's definitely zero reason to think partial blocks will do it. Partial blocks are useful, and perhaps if there was no previous iban violations, a partial block from one article and maybe its talk page would be a good way to try and deal with the problem instead of a 24 hour block or whatever. But it's ridiculous to suggest an ever expanding list of partial blocks because an editor refuses to be serious with their iban. If an editor can't resist the urge to poke another editor even when we've told them in no uncertain terms they need to resist, they can fuck off, no matter how good their general work is. ] (]) 10:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* {{ping|Andrew Davidson}} It is indeed a heavy blow, and one I didn't want to take. I tried very hard to avoid it. Please see ], where a final warning was given for something that other administrators likely would have blocked Mathsci but I chose instead to warn for, with a custom written personal warning. This block was preceded by other blocks for violations of the IBAN and other infractions of the IBAN. The message is not getting through. If lightly tapping the hammer isn't getting through, heavier blows might. This is the action that I've taken. To continue your musical analogy (which seems apropos, given the subject area in which Mathsci and FS work), we were at pianissimo years ago, before the IBAN was put in place. With all the disputes that happened around that, we reached mezzo piano before the IBAN. At the IBAN institution, we reached mezzo forte. With the block this past November, we were at double forte. With the month long block in February, we were at triple forte. We're now in what I've heard some brass players like to say as "blow their ears off" territory that would make Tchaikovsky proud. I've suggested, and pinged you to, your alternative for partial blocks to Mathsci. If Mathsci is amenable, I will start a sub-thread here to seek community input on what would be a novel sanction (so far as I'm aware). --] (]) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Hammersoft's block is well within the range of reasonable admin actions available to him; indeed, before the block, Mathsci received more advice on how to avoid a block than many might have received—or expected. And yet. Someone is clearly at fault in that equation; it is not the administrator. ]] 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Google Street View == | |||
| I have been trying to add information about museums that have been added in 2020 and 2021 on this ], but for a reason, the edition is removed, I have been looking for the information for these museums, in which I found that specifically cite that these museums have been added to Google Street View and on a certain date. I have written several comments regarding that this information should be on the ] but no one gives me a clear answer regarding this information. What should I do?--] (]) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|JSeb05}}, your question would be better suited at the ]; this page is used to report issues to the administrators. <small>(NAC)</small> ]] 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :What happens is that the User FDW777, keeps reverting my edits and the information that added the page, this information has exact date and are from reliable sources, I have tried to talk to the user, but he has not given me a clear answer.--] (]) 22:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|JSeb05}} if you want to bring up an editor's actions here or on ANI you should notify them on their talk page, manually or using the TB option on ]. ] (]) 00:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I've tried to engage with this editor, only it's proving difficult. Their newly added material has been removed with an explanation and pointing to ], only to have it with an edit summary saying {{tq|First, a decision should be made and voted on the ] before removing this type of information}}, and for anyone not checking where "talk page" links to it's an easter egg link to failed proposal ]. Then there's also additions such as where a is cited for an addition of Turkey towns/cities of {{tq|], ], ], ], ] and ]}}, when the map doesn't even contain the names of any places at all. ] (]) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry if I'm not good at editing or citing references, I'm new to editing pages. These sites were added to Google Street View in 2020, first of all, the page mentions in multiple sections about the different museums around the world (For example, the National Museum of Iraq), these virtual tours are considered as Street View. In 2020, Google cooperated with different museums in Germany, Italy and Austria for virtual tours, I gave sources and dates of the Street View as well as news reports of such events., these sources talk specifically about Street View ()()(). The reason why I added that map of Turkey is because the red lines represent the urban centers of those cities or towns that were added in March 2020. That tool compares different layers of blue lines and detects which ones are added by Google on a certain date.--] (]) 17:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::FDW777 is correct, {{U|JSeb05}}, that if you add some content and it's removed then you should discuss this on the talk page. It takes a lot of experience to find out which pages reflect common practice, which pages are interpreted how and which pages are not really looked at. In seven years I don't think I've ever seen ] before, but the "failed proposal" sign at the top should be a dead giveaway. ] is a page that has a lot more meaning to the community. It's just very annoying if someone keeps adding the same thing again, even if it's alongside discussion—it serves to highlight your differences and make things feel like a fight, whereas in a discussion one person might learn something new and change their mind, or two people might find their views actually align quite a lot and there is a compromise to have (e.g. the content belongs on a different article, or some of it is actually fine for this article). — ] (''']''') 23:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry again, I did not know about it, I will try to be more careful when adding this kind of information, thank you very much for telling me this.--] (]) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion regarding Tenebrae == | |||
| Due to a conflict of interest, ] is indefinitely banned from any mainspace edits related to ] or ], broadly construed. Violations will be enforced by escalating blocks. They may request edits on talkpages. This restriction may be appealed in six months. For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Motion regarding Tenebrae}}'''<!-- ] (]) 12:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| ::See also the CBAN discussion / ] (]) 20:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Closure review for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war RFC on Infobox == | |||
| * discussion, closed by {{ping|Mikehawk10}} | |||
| * (where he suggested a closure review is fully appropriate) | |||
| This is a request to review the close at ] to determine whether Turkey should be listed in the infobox as a full belligerent (as opposed to just "Supported by" or an "alleged" note). I discussed this with the closer ]. | |||
| {{collapse top}} | |||
| Mikehawk10 stated in closing: ''Some of the sources provided by those who argue Turkey are a belligerent do not seem to strictly indicate anything beyond support, but it should be noted that support does not preclude Turkey from being a belligerent. Future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time, but there does not appear to be consensus at this time among editors that Turkey qualifies a belligerent.'' | |||
| I believe there is enough due ] to list Turkey as a full belligerent and list the Turkish leaders involved as commanders and leaders. I provided a number of sources for this relating to Turkey deploying Syrian mercenaries (the article infobox currently erroneously lists the mercenaries under Azerbaijan) and fighter jets and also reliable sources confirming Turkish involvement, which I will quickly recap. I have also since come across three more incriminating sources for Turkish involvement that were not included in the RfC (1, possibly 2, were published afterward). These sources include ], ] (note that Israel provided support to Azerbaijan), and even an Azeri source, ]. | |||
| The mercenaries were recruited by Turkey and transported on Turkish military aircraft. Many major third-party sources also described Turkey's role as "decisive" and "critical". | |||
| These sources are currently cited in the infobox: | |||
| :''the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh, as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries'' - European Parliament | |||
| :''The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces.'' - Stratfor | |||
| :''Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer'' - Reuters | |||
| The ] has made an official statement condemning Turkey for its involvement in the war and confirming the Turkish government was responsible for deploying "terrorist fighters" (their choice of words), Stratfor has literally stated Turkish military involvement goes far beyond support and confirmed the presence of Turkish fighter jets, and Reuters confirmed that even Azerbaijan admitted that Turkish F-16 fighters were provided. | |||
| And now, here are the three additional sources I have since found: | |||
| <hr> | |||
| {{quote|This page identifies perpetrators of the conflict in Artsakh, highlighting...(ii) Turkish commanders overseeing and advising the operations | |||
| 1. Defense Minister Hulusi Akar<br>Akar, Turkish Defense Minister since 2018, was one of the first Turkish officials to make public threats against Armenia after Azerbaijani aggression in July 2020. In a meeting with Azerbaijani high command that month, he pledged Turkey's support to the Azerbaijani cause in Artsakh. Following that meeting, Turkish weapon shipments were delivered to Azerbaijan. Akar was in Baku on September 28-30 and played an important role overseeing all operations in Artsakh. His Ph.D was on WWI-era Armenia and American views of the Armenian Genocide, which Turkey still denies. | |||
| 2. Lieutenant General Şeref Öngay<br>Öngay is the Commander of the Third Army of the Turkish Ground Forces, which is based in eastern Turkey and has responsibility for the Caucuses...The Armenian delegation at OSCE say he “took part in planning and conducting” Artsakh operations. He was also spotted in Azerbaijan on 4 September 2020, as well as October, planning joint operations with the Azerbaijani military. | |||
| 3. Major General Bahtiyar Ersay<br>Ersay, whose title is officially “Chief of the Operations Directorate of the Land Forces of Turkey,” oversaw the Azerbaijani General Staff in Artsakh following the sacking of former Azerbaijani Chief of Staff Najmeddin Sadikov...Ersay was confirmed to reside in Azerbaijan as recently as March 15th 2021, using the title "Commander of the Turkish Mission in Azerbaijan". Since the Azerbaijani Chief of the General Staff still remains vacant, and Ersay has been seen wearing Azerbaijani military attire, it is likely he is de facto in charge of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces. | |||
| Ersay was also involved in Syria and Libya, potentially recruiting and overseeing the mercenaries that fought there. Because of this and his commando past, he is likely the Turkish commander most directly involved with these jihadi mercenaries. | |||
| 4. Major General Göksel Kahya<br>Kahya is an important Turkish drone commander who heads the Turkish Air Force’s 1st Supply and Maintenance Center. Prior to the Artsakh conflict, he led the deployment of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones in the Libyan Civil War. This drone expertise was then shifted to Azerbaijan, where he was based since July 2020 and oversaw the well-documented use of TB2 drones. These drones both were instrumental for the Azerbaijani victory in the conflict and made possible the devastating human rights abuses against civilians. | |||
| 5. Adnan Tanrıverdi<br>Tanrıverdi is a retired Turkish general and the founder of SADAT Inc. International Defense Consultancy, a private defense contracting company started in 2012...Tanrıverdi has significant influence over Erdogan, using SADAT against Erdogan enemies in the "coup" in 2016, and helping re-organize and purge the Turkish Armed Forces. As a result, SADAT has been referred to as a shadow military. Reportedly, he and SADAT have played an important role in recruiting, equipping, and transporting about 3,000 Syrian mercenaries to both Libya and Artsakh. Importantly, SADAT is also the primary organization training these Turkish-backed mercenary proxies. Though he lacks any official position in the Turkish government/military, his influence is significant.}} | |||
| All of these figures should be added to 'Commanders and leaders' in addition to Erdogan at the top of them. | |||
| <hr> | |||
| {{quote|Turkey strongly supported the decision by Azerbaijan to begin in September 2020 a military campaign intended to wrest back the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh from Armenia. Evidence rapidly began to accumulate that Ankara was maintaining a similar pipeline of Syrian client fighters to the battleground, as had been the case in vis Libya. The components and tools of this strategy were familiar. Again, official denials from Ankara and Baku were rapidly belied by reports from the battle zone. | |||
| Once again, the Syrian fighters were recruited by the SNA, in cooperation with SADAT. The fighters were offered monthly fees of $1,500-2,000 for agreeing to serve in the southern Caucasus. The contracts, again, were for three to six months. The main recruitment centers were in the cities of Afrin, Al-Bab, Ras al-Ain, and Tel Abyad. The route taken out of Syria, according to fighters’ testimony, was also similar. Fighters crossed the border at Kilis and were then transported to the Gaziantep Airport. From there, SADAT-chartered A-400 transport aircraft flew them to Istanbul Airport, and from there they boarded flights to Baku, Azerbaijan. | |||
| The specific SNA-associated militias used for this deployment differed from those who provided the manpower for Libya. The main pools of manpower for this deployment were the Sultan Murad, Suleyman al-Shah, Hamza and Failaq al-Sham brigades. The first two of these brigades draw their support from ethnic Turkmen populations in northern Syria, and hence may have been assumed to have had a greater natural affinity for the Turkic Azeris than would Syrian Sunni Muslims of Arab ethnicity. | |||
| But in its general contours, the deployment in Nagorno-Karabakh resembled the blueprint established in Libya. In both cases, the role of SADAT was paramount in the recruitment, organization, and transport of the fighters; the SNA was the chief pool of manpower; and the deployment took place alongside the use of specialists from the official Turkish armed forces.}} | |||
| <hr> | |||
| One of the Turkish commanders died in a helicopter crash earlier this month, and Azeri news agency ] confirmed his role: | |||
| {{quote|As a result of a plane crash with a military helicopter, which occurred on Thursday, March 4, in eastern Turkey, Turkish General Osman Erbash, who was at the origin of the creation of the Bayraktar combat drones, was killed. | |||
| The son-in-law of Turkish President Erdogan, the owner of a company that produces Turkish drones, Selcuk Bayraktar, wrote about this in his Telegram channel. | |||
| Their cooperation consisted in testing developments for the combat use of drones. | |||
| In addition, General Erbash in Turkey is called one of the authors of the strategy used by Azerbaijan to succeed in the Second Karabakh War.}} | |||
| Similar to how Turkey is listed as a full belligerent on the ] and ], it is also a full belligerent here as well. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| --] (]) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :So this wall of text was all to say you don't like how the RfC was closed? And to re-litigate the RfC here, apparently? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I trimmed everything not directly related to my argument. And if you bothered to look at my discussion with the closer, you would know he suggested there was "significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion" and encouraged making a closure review. --] (]) 23:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: For basic readability, I have collapsed your long opening comment. --] (]) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] - You will recall that you brought this dispute to ] in December 2020. When I began the moderated discussion that ended in my launching the RFC on 14 January 2020, I wrote, on 22 December 2020: "Be civil and concise". I have often written that overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not clarify the issues or help resolve a content dispute. A 1460-word closure appeal does not clarify the issues. ] (]) 15:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Admins and editors: I made a long unsuccessful attempt to resolve this dispute in December 2020 and January 2021 that ended in composing and posting the RFC. This is another area where there is ] because there have been battles, and where ArbCom has imposed ]. My sympathies to anyone who tries to help resolve it. ] (]) 15:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Is this article move protected? There's no indication of such, but there's also no "move" tab (although the talk page has one). The article is written with "Imperial State of Iran" as the subject matter. Having "Pahlavi dynasty" as the article title is discordant. Either the article should be re-written to match the title, or it should be moved to "Imperial State of Iran" with "Pahlavi dynasty" as a redirect. The current combination is not ideal. ] (]) 02:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Beyond My Ken}} Yes it's moved protected. Look at . No idea why it was moved protected indefinitely a year after the last move. ], ], ] 05:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 05:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reading this, I had a faint feeling of déjà vu. Checking some more, I found ] when I came across the article by coincidence in 2017. Nobody responded, I forgot about it, and the curious "former country"="royal house" situation is still there. There is currently a split proposal discussed in the talk page, but with very little participation. The solution is obviously to split the article, but the level of interest is probably too low to expect anyone to do the job. --] (]) 10:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Time sensitive main page image issue== | |||
| There's been some concern raised that the image for ] (currently on the main page) is unnecessarily graphic. There's a discussion at ] which I participated in, which I would tentatively describe as having a consensus to remove or replace the images, although no consensus about what to replace them with. Could an administrator have a look and see whether it is appropriate at this time to remove or replace the images? The TFA coordinators have been pinged, but as far as I can tell none have responded, and the problem is time sensitive on account of involving the current main page. Finally, I apologize if this is not an appropriate forum for such a request. ] (]) 06:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The TFA coordinator has changed the image. For the record: TFA ] and ]. ] (]) 09:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed community ban for User:Tenebrae == | |||
| {{atop|1=With limited opposition, the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. ], '''{{u|Tenebrae}} is indefinitely ]''' in addition to . ] (]) 11:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| Following on from the ] notified above, a few discussions are taking shape... | |||
| *At ], where at least two of us think the sanction (a topic ban) is insufficient. | |||
| *At ], documenting the range of articles which Tenebrae has edited with an undeclared COI | |||
| *At ], looking at the way Outing policy has hampered attempts by others to highlight the chronic COI problem. | |||
| This was all kicked off by in ]. (To quote Arbitrator Beeblebrox at the COIN discussion: "''We have advised the oversight team that after careful review, we do not believe linking to the article constitutes suppressible outing. The article includes Frank Lovece's denial that he is Tenebrae, and per WP:RSP the Daily Dot is considered a generally reliable source for internet culture. Whether any link to the article should be on-wiki is therefore purely an editorial decision. It really does not matter if Lovece and Tenebrae are the same person or not, the COI is manifest and well documented''". Based on that, I think it's fair to include the link.)<p> | |||
| The COI promotion of Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh has been going on for almost the entire 15 years of Tenebrae's presence here. During that time, a number of editors have tried to address the problem and have been blocked for outing. Tenebrae has been well aware that he has been breaking Misplaced Pages policy, and appears to have used Misplaced Pages policy to silence his critics. But even without any outing claims, as Beeblebrox says, ''the COI is manifest and well documented''.<p>On the basis of his chronic abuse of Misplaced Pages for promotional COI purposes, I think a topic ban is insufficent. I propose a community ban for ]. ] (]) 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)<br> | |||
| A sentence I meant to include but forgot: In my view, someone who has been so deceitful for so long, and has pushed the subjects of their COI so intensively, should not be trusted to work on any part of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Ban proposal=== | |||
| I propose a community ban for ]. ] (]) 12:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' until we have had chance to see whether the topic ban works or not. If not, then I'll happily agree. ]] 11:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Supportish''' If it is true that "a number of editors have tried to address the problem and have been blocked for outing. Tenebrae has been well aware that he has been breaking Misplaced Pages policy, and appears to have used Misplaced Pages policy to silence his critics." That is battleground beyond the pale, and no trust can now be given. -- ] (]) 11:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:There is evidence, but it's off-wiki at places that can't be linked. (Well, on-wiki too, but suppressed). ] (]) 11:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban might be effective if it actually covered the breadth of the COI editing, but it does not, so cannot. Combined with the sheer egregiousness of the behaviour (15 years of persistent, consistent promotion) and compared with the somewhat light-weighted response (a t-ban which all but reads as encouraging an appeal in six months (yes I know that's a matter of interpretation, but that's how it will be read, and should have been far more robust: had it been, this discussion might not be necessary)) ban imposed by the community is appropriate. ]] 11:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I do not see a reason the community can not levy a wider topic ban rather than a community ban. ] (]) 14:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Well, I understand a lack of appetite to do what the committee has explicitly not done. ]] 14:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For clarification: our wording does not intend to encourage an appeal. ArbCom offers an appeal for essentially every action we take. It also does not mean we have to grant them. We hear a truly fabulous number of appeals each year and grant very few. Additionally, our topic ban does not preclude the community making a wider topic ban. ] <sup>]</sup>] 15:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{reply|Captain Eek}} per {{u|Drmies}}. ]] 19:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' what tips the scale over for me is the misusing of Misplaced Pages's inner processes to silence his critics. This behavior is unacceptable in a collaborative environment, and indeed battleground behavior beyond the pale. This is deception of large magnitude. ] (]) 13:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I won't formally 'support' this proposal, since I don't really consider it appropriate for someone who has been as inactive as I have been on Misplaced Pages for some years to do so. I would however point out that in addition to the other issues already mentioned, there seems to be strong circumstantial evidence (as noted in the Daily Dot article) of sockpuppet accounts being used by Tenebrae. He has previously admitted to editing as an IP in a manner that led to one previous block (see ]) and there are a number of other named accounts and IPs which seem not only to have edited the same articles as Tenebrae (including i.e. the Lovece biography), but to have otherwise consistently edited in the same broader intersection of topics that Tenebrae did. It is probably pointless to start a formal sockpuppet investigation now (the IPs would certainly be 'stale') but this may also merit consideration here. ] (]) 13:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Second this''' Like Andy I'm a long time from properly editing so won't interfere in the current management of the project by supporting or opposing. I do share the same concerns that if the likes of Skippu or Hal Raglan - which though stale appear to be socks of his - reappear or similar other accounts start showing the same traits then they should be investigated. ] (]) 19:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak oppose'''. It may be worth looking at broadening the scope of the topic ban if Tenebrae doesn't take the hint, but his edits away from areas where he has (or appears to have) a close connection are constructive. People make bad judgements, and they do strange things when they feel threatened and sometimes it's difficult for them to back down. ] and maybe he'll see the error of his ways, or maybe he'll hang himself. ] | ] 13:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:From what I can tell, Tenebrae has had over 15 years of ROPE. I think that is quite enough. ] (]) 13:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' - What a mess this entire thing is, including the sanctions levied on community members who tried to bring this out in the past. ArbCom would be well advised to spend a little more energy on protecting editors who have nothing but the good of Misplaced Pages at heart, as too often they get steamrolled. Protecting whistle-blowers is just as important as protecting editors from being outed, and '''''both''''' must be accommodated. In any case, from what I can determine from reading the ''Daily Dot'' article, the discussion at the ArbCom noticeboard, and some various other things, it seems to me that Tenebrae, whether o not they are the person that they are supposed to be, has used Misplaced Pages for their own purposes for a long time, and a CBAN is well-deserved. ] (]) 13:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per . Far too much dishonesty is tolerated here, and it creates a toxic environment. Just as we require reliable sources, we should also require reliable editors. ] (]) 13:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Boing! ] (]) 14:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Using a source that you or someone with a very close connection created to support wrongnaming someone is absolutely disgraceful behaviour and brings the project into disrepute. There can be no other solution but a ban. ] (]) 14:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''With great prejudice'''. ArbCom faltered. A topic ban isn't enough. This brings the project into disrepute. ] 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*I don't think we "faltered" at all. We did the part that ''had to'' be done by arbcom, an off-wiki private discussion about Tenebrae's conflict of interest. It involved both off-wiki websites and suppressed material, so there was no way to have a public case about that specific aspect. That opened the door to freer discussion that is going on now. There's nothing here the community can't decide for itself. ] (]) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*], it's my contention that ArbCom's action was too soft. Not sure why the off-wiki facets of this serve as justification for this action not being potent enough. What about the on-wiki issues? That isn't to say the community can't handle this matter, either, but I do feel that invoking that explanation sidesteps my point. ] 17:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Having thought about it some more, I think it was clear to ArbCom that there's enough information available publicly for the community to decide on the appropriate level of sanction. And ArbCom did the minimum they thought necessary, effectively passing it over to the community to take further if we wanted. I think ArbCom's action was good. ] (]) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Well, I do think that an ArbCom block would have been the appropriate action here, which of course doesn't at all precludes it being followed by a community ban (we've seen such things before, I believe), but maybe I'm in the minority thinking the "minimum" was good enough. I don't feel I need to press the point further, though. This doesn't change my thinking that this is a good Committee batch, but I do think a more decisive action was called for in this case. For whatever that's worth. ] 17:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*If we had done a full case and solicited evidence submissions from the community, I suspect we would have come to very different conclusions, but it's kind of hard to solicit evidence when you are discussing something privately. ] (]) 17:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*I just presumed that with how long it took the Committee to investigate this, enough on-wiki evidence would have came up to remove any doubt. But maybe not...? Again, I don't see the need to press this further (''further''), though. ] 17:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''very weak oppose''' in favour of a very broadly interpreted topic ban from anything to do with Frank Lovcae and/or Maitland McDonagh, in every namespace, that is strictly enforced. That would explicitly including adding them as a source, suggesting or commenting on their use as a source anywhere on Misplaced Pages, no editing of articles (or their talk pages) about or significantly covering them or their work or which make extensive use of either as a source (defined as more three or citations to works where one or both is listed as a contributor). There would be exactly three exceptions: (1) They may (but are obviously not required) to discuss their COI on their user and/or user talk page. (2) They may answer questions about their past edits, if explicitly asked. (3) To the extent necessary, they may discuss these topics as part of any permitted appeal of their restrictions. Any violation would result in a block, of at least 1 month, without further warning. ] (]) 15:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{cot|1=Support per Tenebrae in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019. ''']] (])'''}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2009: {{tq|blatantly promotional article ... everyone has the responsibility to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please also note the policy at WP:COI.}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2010: {{tq|This article, whose virtually sole editor is the subject himself, suffered from extreme and extensive WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI violations}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2011: {{tq|Misplaced Pages admins take a very, very dim view of article subjects adding multiple links to their own sites. Read WP:COI.}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2012: {{tq|The editor ... is clearly involved ... when he or she created this article, has has added promotional content. I would strongly suggest that this editor cease attempting to use Misplaced Pages for ... promotional purposes, as per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COI and other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2013: {{tq|blatant WP:TONE, WP:COI and POV vios}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2015: {{tq|This is some of the most blatantly COI editing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2016: {{tq|I would ask that COI editor not to edit-war}} | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2017: {{tq|apparently promotional COI editor}}. | |||
| *Tenebrae in 2019: {{tq|I'll see if the percentages of apparently COI contributions has changed since August 2014}} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| *'''Support''' Abused Misplaced Pages for over a decade for own personal gain. What more can a person do to earn a ban? ] (]) 16:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' without question. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. We issue topic bans for editors who get into trouble in a particular area. Users who abuse the encyclopedia and pull the wool over other editors' eyes for their own personal gain, we ban them. This is such a serious violation of everything we are supposed to stand for, there's only one answer. ] (]) 17:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SUpport''' per others, above. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 17:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Drmies, and because I think there has already been enough ROPE. --] (]) 18:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is a shocking violation of community standards by someone who repeatedly used accusations of COI against other people (probably correctly in most cases). Trust is gone. ] ] 18:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per ]. ] (]) 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': as above. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' A long-term abuse of process and of trust by an experienced editor is not something that can be fully addressed by a simple topic ban. ] (]) 19:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Starship.paint, Drmies and others above. - ''']''' (]) 19:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very strong support''' after years upon years of tendentious, unethical COI editing, it is apparent that Tenebrae cannot be trusted to uphold some of the core tenets of Misplaced Pages and has no respect for ] (which is related to both his COI editing and other wild indiscretions.) Add to that the other ], when faced with criticism, often claims despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, making any sort of attempt at collaboration a total time sink. ] 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Given the length and scope of the COI editing, if there was no ban here, I'd be hard-pressed to think of *any* situation that would call for one. This wasn't a simple oopsy-daisy. ] (]) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Enough is enough, ] (]) 21:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' He engaged in decades of unchecked, cynical COI editing. Someone who would engage in such a thing while manipulating process to avoid scrutiny (and get people blocked for whistleblowing) is not a person we want editing the encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Yikes. We've blocked others for much, much less. -] 23:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Drmies, this level of COI editing warrants a ban. — <span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 12px red; background-color: black; padding: 3px; color: white"><b>]<sup>]</sup></b></span> 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' we block or ban new editors for COI on the regular, so make it the same across the board. Considering this has been going on for as long as it has, there's really no excuse. ] (]) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Per their responses in the section below. Also, please god make it stop. ] (]) 01:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I do not know all the facts of the case yet to voice support or not, this is a lot to read, but the "If you look across my 155,000 edits, 99% of them have been constructive and useful" defense is seriously offputting. Like, "officer I drove without drinking 99 times, why are you giving me guff for #100?" ] (]) 01:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:They don't take away your license after one time. ] (]) 02:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::That depends on your jurisdiction, how far over the limit you were, and any other circumstances (did you injure anyone, were you speeding, did you run any red lights, etc). In the UK, the starting point for the least serious drink driving offences is 12-16 months disqualification. ] (]) 02:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Tenebrae keeps talking about "one offense", but clearly the community is discussing multiple ongoing offenses over the course of 15 years. That Tenebrae won't admit to that is irrelevant, it's what the community thinks about it that matters -- but Tenebrae doesn't think this discussion is representative of the community, he says of this discussion: '''"The group is composed virtually entirely of people I've been on opposite sides of RFCs with the past, people with a personal dislike..."'''. ] (]) 02:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Well obviously the plural of anecdote is not data and the claim is "virtually entirely" not "entirely", but as a data point the only discussions (other than this one) that Tenebrae have both been involved with appear to be: | |||
| *::::# This one | |||
| *::::#] (where I express an opinion only about why Arbcom allowing for an appeal in six months is not inappropriate) | |||
| *::::#] (where neither of us express particularly strong opinions) | |||
| *::::#] (where we both recommend deletion) | |||
| *::::#] (where we commented based on unrelated reasons) | |||
| *::::The only article page we have both edited within a year of each other is ] where Tenebrae added references (to UPI) 237 days after I reverted some vandalism. Hardly evidence of a personal dislike even if we were (sort of) on opposite sides of an RFC about ]. ] (]) 03:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Anecodotally too, as the author of the proposal, I don't think I've ever interacted with Tenebrae anywhere, or ever edited the same articles. ] (]) 08:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Unfortunately, their responses below and in other noticeboard threads indicate that they don't understand the fundamental COI issues at stake here, so there's not really a basis for community trust at this point. ] (]) 02:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Drmies. This level of continued deception is beyond the pale. Additionally, mentioned in the article is absolutely disgusting. ] 03:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as I would have rather seen Tenebrae given the opportunity to work with a topic ban on the COI topics, and I would also add the other articles from the COI thread to those as well. I saw his AN/I thread at the beginning of this year and declined to comment on it at that time, and I can't see this ending in anything other than a site ban, but my hope is that however unlikely it may seem at the moment, he can eventually make a return after admitting to any wrongdoing and commit to avoid further wrongdoing, and offer a heartfelt apology to specific editors he may have wronged and the community as a whole, accepting the ARBCOM topic ban and committing to working only on articles to which he has no professional or personal connection. ] (]) 04:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support'''. Such disregard for policy for effectively their entire tenure cannot be overlooked. We've indef'd for much less. <b style="font-family:Papyrus">]</b> <small>(] • ])</small> 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for long term abuse of Misplaced Pages processes. ] (]) 05:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Tenebrae has abused the community's trust for far too long. Without trust, we cannot collaborate. ] (]) 05:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Arbcom did their job on this and the community has its work to do also. Full support, COI concerns using the[REDACTED] allows me to fully support a site ban. I wouldn't pile on but this is worth it for me. ] (]) 08:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - as has been said above, we've banned people for far less before. Tenebrae is clearly a net negative to the project what with seemingly using and abusing Misplaced Pages for personal gain, and seemingly not being on the same planet as the ]. ] <small>( ] · ] )</small> 08:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Tenebrae)=== | |||
| *Has {{u|Tenebrae}} himself commented on this anywhere? – ] <small>(])</small> 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::<small>'''{{u|Joe Roe}} I bet you're sorry now that you asked. ] (]) 01:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)'''</small> | |||
| *:I see nothing at ]. All I know of is a denial from Frank Lovece as reported in the Daily Dot article - "''Reached by phone, Lovece denies any connection to the Misplaced Pages user Tenebrae''". ] (]) 12:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::<small>To which I'm sure Many Rice-Davies ]... ]]</small> | |||
| :: He commented in on ]: {{quote|Article was by banned user User:Hillbillyholiday, who had a history of personal clashes with me, cherrypicked selective information, ignoring whatever didn't fit his thesis, among other editorial lapses, and was a poor attempt at WP:OUTING. The subject in the article denied any connection}} ] (]) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|During that time, a number of editors have tried to address the problem and have been blocked for outing. }} Are there banned/retired-in-frustration editors owed an apology or reinstatement? ] ] 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Other than me {{u|Cloven Freak}} was indeffed, but Cloven Freak is the pseudonym used in the Wikipediocracy investigation, and is likely the comment referred to in the Daily Dot piece: "When Wikipediocracy asked if Tenebrae wrote the Drag Race story for Newsday, the edit was "oversighted," totally removed from the page history so that even administrators cannot view it.", so that doesn't count. {{u|Nola Carveth}} was blocked directly for bringing up Tenebrae on Jimbotalk in 2015, but again it was a throwaway account. ] (]) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I raised this problem about Tenebrae with several Admins from 2012 till I retired in 2015. I'm also named in the Daily Dot on that Basis. Although none were acted upon, my biggest gripe was that in one disagreement on ] he refused to engage citing that I had a COI - eventually to the point I submitted myself to a COI investigation and was cleared. Yet any time his COI was raised it was brushed away. ] (]) 18:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, using throwaway accounts to do things that you know perfectly well will get you blocked is exactly the wrong way to address a COI issue. This should have been caught and dealt with sooner, I think we can all see that, and it sounds like Mr. Jamieson here tried to do it the right way, it's unfortunate that that effort failed. (do you have links to any of those old discussions? Might be worth looking at for clues as to why this was not taken seriously) ] (]) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Looking in from the outside, using throwaways or posting offsite seem to be the -only- avenues. Honestly a pretty perfect use of IAR. ] (]) 20:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This. I bet that if the Daily Dot and Wikipediocracy articles were not written, Tenebrae would still have been able to continue what he was doing. ] (]) 05:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I made a broad description of the problem at ], but any actual discussions I had took place off-wiki to avoid the potential pitfall. In the emails I still have, I addressed the problem with ](in response to the original Demi Moore Talkpage issue) and ] (Which was in response to a later issue he was having with Tenebrae), but in those make reference to having passed more of the information to ] and ] who I think like Dweller were heavily involved in the Demi Moore mediation. In that Demi Moore debate, I strongly suspected Tenebrae Socked as an IP to support his own position, but he repeatedly denied it. I think I asked ] to contact me off-wiki about that potential socking, but nothing ultimately came of it. ] (]) 22:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| At the very real risk of being attacked rather being engaged with as a normal human being, I'd like to ask for perspective. May we do that? | |||
| If you look across my 155,000 edits, 99% of them have been constructive and useful. I've created more than 100 articles about comics creators, plus popular articles such as the important ]. Please that this overwhelming bulk of my edits has gotten through the years. So suggesting that I was on Misplaced Pages solely for nefarious COI purposes is simply false, as any reasonably minded person can see via the objective, on-the-record Contributions page. A great deal of what I've done is RS-cite birthdates, birth names and birthplaces. (Additionally, you'll see many edits on the two named pages are neutral, non-contentious grammar and copy-editing and cite-formatting.) | |||
| Some of you are basing your judging on me as a human being based solely on 1% of my total output. I'd like to quote from ]: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, '''not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.'''" (emphasis added). | |||
| And please note, too, that Lovece footnotes are in some cases the ''only'' RS source, to my knowledge, for certain things; if not, by all means replace them. But leaving BLP claims uncited because one journalist is being blackballed seems counterproductive. To my knowledge, David Schwimmer never directly said anywhere else that he was not related to Lacey Schwimmer and did not appear in ''Biloxi Blues.'' To my knowledge, Lori Loughlin had never personally clarified the conflicting claims of her birthplace. And though it's not a BLP article, there is no other source, to my knowledge, of the distributor of '']'' clarifying and explaining the myriad different running times of that movie. I'm not sure why we'd remove these kinds of facts and clarifications from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| So let's please have a dialog and not a crucifixion. I recognize some names as editors from whom I've taken a different side in RfC debates, so this strikes me as perhaps imbalanced. I'd like to see some of my many collaborative colleagues join this discussion, if that's alright with everyone. I'd like to believe it would be, and that this isn't being deliberately titled. | |||
| Thank you for listening. --] (]) 20:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :So no statement on the actual issue at hand here then? No comment on your alleged COI connection with Frank Lovece? That's what you need to address. What, if any, is your connection with Frank Lovece? ] (]) 20:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, and re: "''I'd like to see some of my many collaborative colleagues join this discussion, if that's alright with everyone.''" Nobody is stopping anybody from taking part here, but please be aware of ] (in case you haven't come across it before), which prohibits the solicitation of favoured contributors. ] (]) 20:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :What a pantload. "C'mon guys, I was on Misplaced Pages PARTLY for nefarious COI purposes!" ''']''' (]) 20:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Tenebrae, not to pile on, but to bolster Boing's query: please act with a modicum of grace on your way out and clear all of that up, once and for all, expressly so and for the record. ] 20:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Tenebrae, you've quoted the COI guideline out of context. Where it refers to someone having a COI as "a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith", it isn't referring to someone who acts as if he doesn't have that COI. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|A great deal of what I've done is RS-cite birthdates, birth names and birthplaces.}} you claim this an awful lot, but a quick look at your recent contributions show everything is not on the up and up with regard to ], especially given your excessive citing and even replacement of RS with ], which isn't inherently unreliable but the sources you're using are clearly not reviewed by any sort of editorial team and are clearly taken from Misplaced Pages itself. | |||
| :*]- removing the TV guide source and replacing it with UPI | |||
| :*] - adding UPI to the lead in lieu of the AllMusic site which is already sourced below | |||
| :*] - adding UPI when it's already sourced and has been for a year | |||
| :*] - adding UPI | |||
| :*] - adding UPI | |||
| :*] - | |||
| ::I could continue but I'd hardly construe adding non-rs and replacing actual RS or adding non-rs and passing it off as RS in a BLP is not "good editing" and I'd expect someone with 155k edits to understand how to actually identify a reliable source vs. one that is clearly circular and copied from Misplaced Pages. ] 21:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Tenebrae, let me remind you of to me in January. | |||
| :{{tquote|Conflict of interest has never been an issue in my 15 years on Misplaced Pages — where, unfortunately, those years have been the occasional incident of obsessive editors attempting to "dig up dirt" on someone who articulately disagrees with them, and who throw any evidence-free allegation they can think up. The past couple of weeks have seen these same editors falsely accuse me of ] and ], both investigations of which were quickly quashed by admins who immediately saw right through them. My edits and my character have withstood similar scrutiny in past such attacks, and believe me, any actual COI would have been uncovered long, long ago.}} | |||
| :And: | |||
| :{{tquote|...corny as you might think, I have the integrity and ethics that come from years in my profession, and I would never commit nor countenance conflict of interest. Period.}} | |||
| :Nuff said. ] (]) 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break 1 (Tenebrae)=== | |||
| Tenebrae writes above that "Lovece footnotes are in some cases the only RS source, to my knowledge, for certain things". A statement which might possibly sometimes be true, though I have to question, after looking at this particular edit, whether Tenebrae actually understands what 'RS' means. Tenebrae cites his favourite source from an article written in 1977. Lovece was born in 1958. The article cited (no longer online at the original URL, but available in an archived form) is from a fanzine (Tenebrae states this in the edit summary). An article written by someone aged nineteen or so. Even ignoring any possible CoI issues, that isn't remotely 'RS' for anything. Tenerbrae routinely hectors others about the need for 'RS' (see his edit summaries), but has a self-evident blind spot when it comes to a source which he seems to have an as-yet unexplained entirely inordinate preference for. ] (]) 22:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any of us, obviously, are free to replace any edit they want to. My sole concern is that BLP claims and niche claims like the running times of newly restored cuts of obscure art films be RS cited, no matter by who. If you can find other RS cites, go for it. Of course. ] (]) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::You haven't explained why you think that a nineteen-year-old writing in a fanzine should be seen as RS. As for BLP claims, I'm personally of the belief that biographies which are heavily dependent on material which cannot be found in more than a single source are generally a bad idea. That isn't Misplaced Pages policy though, obviously. | |||
| :::In any case, the proposal here isn't to remove every single citation to Lovece from Misplaced Pages. Instead, any edits to article space are, as I understand it, intended instead to rectify the undue prominence Lovece (and his employers) have been given by the selective inclusion of material which could equally have been cited elsewhere. And also intended to rectify situations where RS policy seems not to have been appropriately applied. If Lovece (as an adult journalist) is a valid source for anything (I have no particular reason to think he can't be cited for some things), he can be used. Like any other source, where appropriate, in a non-partisan manner. By editors who don't raise concerns about CoI editing. ] (]) 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Tenebrae: {{tq| I'd like to see some of my many collaborative colleagues join this discussion}} - you betrayed every single one of them. ''']] (])''' 23:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :So, I see ... no ] discussion but snottiness and attacks. That comment "C'mon guys, I was on Misplaced Pages PARTLY for nefarious COI purposes!" snarkily and unfairly ignores more than 154,000 edits to falsely make it seem that a statistically insignificant 1% or less of problematic edits is the only thing in the world. | |||
| :And to clarify: Stating an ]-cited objective fact about someone you may or may not know is not a conflict of interest. Objective facts are objective facts. If I were to cite that someone I knew wrote a book, and I list it in the bibliography with the publisher, isbn # etc., that is not a conflict of interest. | |||
| :I'm interested in something one person said, which was effectively, "Sure, invite anyone you want. But don't invite them — that's canvassing." Quite a catch-22. How about if I invite solely editors who have commented on my talk page, whoever they are, friend or foe. Would that satisfy any concerns? | |||
| :And as a side note, someone said, "It's obvious that ], a decades-old journalistic institution is a mirror of Misplaced Pages." Is there any proof of that? UPI was doing "This Day in History" long before there was Misplaced Pages. They have news bureaus all over the world, and access to every standard database, such as voter-registration records.--] (]) 00:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::So posting this nonsense on my talk page and ] wasn't enough forum shopping, you also do it here? I explain '''very clearly''' on my talk page why '''that specific instance''' is not an RS and if you can't understand what ] is and how it applies when is literally just taken from you're just reinforcing my strong support for your site ban and ban from all BLPS. And for clarification since you like to misrepresent what people say, I said that piece was circular, I never said all of UPI is. ] 00:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you're saying that because Misplaced Pages has a page of dates that UPI ''must'' have swiped that date from us? That UPI has no other resources and has to swipe from Misplaced Pages? What about the ] or ]? Are we to assume that any news organization providing This Day in History dates swipes it from Misplaced Pages? That seems like a personal assumption without any proof. I've seen ] sites where there's a credit line: "Source: Misplaced Pages." I'm not seeing that at UPI, AP or ABC News.--] (]) 00:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That is literally not what I said, but if you keep up this intentionally misleading editing claiming I said things like " "It's obvious that ], a decades-old journalistic institution is a mirror of Misplaced Pages."", you'll probably get blocked sooner than this thread gets closed. {{u|Tenebrae}}, if you want to discuss my edits, the place isn't here. Make another thread at the appropriate noticeboard but let me reiterate that if you intentionally misquote me again, I will be asking for an immediate block. ] 00:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And does everyone see this? Uncivil threats. The language I'm seeing here is not that of a dispassionate discussion but of people with a personal dislike who feel free to hurl insults and make threats. As for this person's particular point, you said, without proof, that UPI swipes from that Misplaced Pages page of dates that you linked to. You cited ], which says don't link to mirrors of Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting what you said. But that's neither here not there — I haven't touch your reverts of UPI, and all I did was ask questions. But hate being what it is, even something as innocent as asking questions elicits threats.--] (]) 00:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::A statement of fact is not a threat. Your ability to become the victim in any discussion is really remarkable, almost magical. You should figure out a way to monetize it. ] 00:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::See what I mean about hurling insult and sarcasm and not not engaging in constructive dialog? That was in lieu of addrssing my point: "ou said, without proof, that UPI swipes from that Misplaced Pages page of dates that you linked to. You cited ], which says don't link to mirrors of Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting what you said."--] (]) 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I literally provided it no less than 3 times, on my own talk page when {{u|Ponyo}} thanked me for removing the non-RS, in response to you '''here''' and on ]. But again, this isn't about me, you need to stay on topic. You're welcome to open a thread about my editing, but if you continue carrying on here, I'll just ignore you. ] 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I have a major problem with comparing ] in the 21st century with Associated Press and ABC News. UPI has been in a long, sad decline for at least 40 years and is a flickering shadow of its former self. It is now owned by the Unification Church. It no longer has a White House correspondent or a United Nations correspondent on staff. It makes no attempt to cover general news but is struggling to survive by providing "national security" coverage to other highly biased outlets like ] after losing contracts with thousands of mainstream news outlets. ] ] 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not mean "''Sure, invite anyone you want. But don't invite them — that's canvassing''." I meant we are not stopping your ''collaborative colleagues'' from choosing to comment here of their own accord, but that you must not invite them. As for editors who have commented on your talk page, there is already a notification there of this discussion and its title is linked so it should be pretty obvious what it is about. I suspect any approach by you would be seen as a violation of canvassing policy - but others might comment here if they disagree. ] (]) 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, seeing as how the people with a personal dislike of me would go to the trouble of seeking this out, and my more collegial colleagues may have no idea this is happening, that makes this rather one-sided. | |||
| ::::And even for though who dislike me, can you honestly say that the more than 150,000 edits I've made and the more than 200 articles created have not been beneficial to Misplaced Pages? Seriously — greats like ] and ] had no articles. ] is an important thing for this encyclopedia to have. Just in the last week or so, while everything's going on, I uncovered an essentially lost ] movie, '']'' and created an article for that. I can't go over every single one of my tens of thousands of edits, but to say the 1% or less that are at issue means that other the 99% of good and sometimes even important contributions means nothing — that's not right.--] (]) 00:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Take this how you like, and maybe I shouldn't say it at all, but perhaps it might be worth reflecting on why someone who edits largely in regard to mass-media entertainment material and personalities, as opposed say middle-eastern politics or climate change, should need to have to worry about "people with a personal dislike" of them to the extent that it could become an issue. There are topics where attracting enemies is inevitable (I should know, I edited a few myself in the days when I was here more regularly), but that really shouldn't be happening in the fields you have generally confined to editing within. There will be disputes about policy, and about the inclusion of specific content, certainly, even in the least-controversial of subjects, but if you are finding "personal dislike" as opposed to simple disagreement to be a problem, maybe you should ask yourself where exactly the problem lies, and whether it isn't perhaps closer to home than you'd want to admit. ] (]) 01:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I think you've seen that the language being used here seems less than town-hall civil. Just the fact no one will acknowledge the more than 150,000 useful, productive, constructive edits I've made, as if they've all disappeared or don't matter, suggests to me this is less about my work and more a personal vendetta. I think a more well-rounded community would recognize the good and suggest ] or something similar, rather than immediately going for the nuclear option.--] (]) 01:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This isn't RFA question 2, and you're not being asked about your best contributions to Misplaced Pages. The questions that you ''have'' been asked are about your pattern of COI editing, and continued evasion isn't helping the snowballing of support !votes. ] (]) 01:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am happy to acknowledge that you have made some very beneficial contributions to Misplaced Pages - and that makes this whole affair even more disappointing for me. But no amount of good contributions renders ] policy inapplicable to you. And when you have been in breach of a key Misplaced Pages policy literally for years, *that* is the thing that you need to address in any discussion of that breach. As for a clean start, that can not happen if you do not face up to what you have been doing wrong. You steadfastly fail to do that, and instead blame it all on people who dislike you. (And for the record, as the author of this proposal, I have no reason whatsoever to dislike you.) ] (]) 08:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, and still no comment on whether you actually do or do not have a connection with Frank Lovece? Continued evasiveness will not help. ] (]) 00:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about a 'good faith' explanation for why you have chosen to cite Lovece as a source so frequently? Along with an explanation for why you think that a nineteen-year-old Lovece writing in a fanzine should be seen as a source for 'objective fact', per the edit of yours I linked above? ] (]) 00:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break 2 (Tenebrae)=== | |||
| :I've cited ] and ] probably more times. I've cited ] and ] and ] multiple times as well. As I explained at ARBCOM, when a generation of journalists comes up together, we know each other or, mostly, we know each other's work. If I wrote more about music, I'd be citing my peers Jim Farber, ] and ].--] (]) 02:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages policy at ]/] advises, "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." Asking someone to out themselves is improper. | |||
| :::And as I said above, if you have an issue with any particular cite, then substitute a better cite. Or, in the case of non-BLP claims, remove the cite and add a "citation needed" tag. No one's edits are perfect — neither mine nor yours — and I've even replaced cites I made in, say, 2006 with a cite in, say, 2010. Incidentally, lots of early comics history, before comics scholarship became a thing, is cited to fanzines, including the original ''Alter Ego'' and ''The Comics Reader'' — many of which contain interviews with comics creators like Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and Dick Ayers. I believe ] has a cite to Ditko telling an a mid-1960s fanzine something historic. Nothing inherently wrong with fanzines. And as I said, if any given cite doesn't work for you, sub another or "cn" it. --] (]) 00:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you are citing ] out of context there, but whatever. How about answering this question. ] states that "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". ArbCom seems to have ruled that you have been editing in a manner which runs contrary to that. Do you contend that ArbCom's conclusions regarding this are false? ] (]) 01:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] does not give you a free pass from ] policy. It doesn't mean you don't need to declare a conflict of interest if that would involve self-identification, but that you *must not* edit in a conflicted area or manner if you are not willing to identify your conflict. And the COI is not only about citing Lovece. It's about getting his name into article content wherever you can - "''Frank Lovece says...''", "''According to Frank Lovece...''", etc. It's about writing his BLP article. It's about contributing to his spouse's BLP article. It's about inserting his spouse's name wherever you can. It's about intermingling Lovece's journalistic interactions with your Misplaced Pages editing and making them two prongs of the same work. Tenebrae wants to deadname someone (clearly against considerable community opposition) and uses Lovece citations for the purpose without declaring any connections. That is not acceptable if you have that connection. Disinterested editors can cite Lovece all they want, but if you have a personal connection with him then *you* can not do so without declaring your COI. ] (]) 08:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Btw, can I ask if you have any connection to ]? I note that Hal Raglan is the author of ] and ], and also has a username related to the horror movie genre. It might be just coincidence, of course. ] (]) 09:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Finally dug out my old notes from 2012 which were filed away on a backup hard-drive. Despite my comment above, in my notes I have ] as a meat puppet, as I couldn't confirm it as a Sock despite the similar behaviour. My most likely guess if that's true would be the subject of the article created. I also had ] and ] likely to be similar. I did have ] as a Sock along with ] plus 24 IP Addresses though, some of which absolutely ] the editor. ] (]) 11:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ah, interesting. I did notice ], but the author of it, ], was one of the throwaway accounts that was blocked and had their edits suppressed. ] (]) 11:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Just for the record the Nola Carveth account isn't anything to do with me, and everyone I think I've spoken to was in a raised position to have marshalled this without a throwaway account. I also wasn't editing much at the time as I was primarily on mobile and the interface at that time was terrible on mobiles so wasn't even aware that it had been raised. Since finding out it was raised (via wikipediocracy) Nola Carveth's identity has interested me. ] (]) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Observation: When someone gets caught doing something like this, do they ever actually comment on the important questions to anyone's satisfaction? I don't believe I have ever seen that happen, and I don't think it will here either. ] (]) 00:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. You're right. Guilty or innocent, this sort of thread is the most horrible thing a Wikipedist can endure. The mind runs and hides. Denial sets in. Panic takes over. No, it is likely impossible to deal with accusations like this. And how does one defend oneself against such a charge? --<b>] ]</b> 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like we’ve got another @] impersonator here. ''If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try…'' ] ] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ] ] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Proposed community ban of Marginataen == | |||
| == ] again == | |||
| {{atop|status=Community ban imposed|1=This clearly fall sunder the {{tqq|except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours}} condition of ]. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Goddard2000}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Marginataen}} | |||
| This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a ]), and two days after their last unblock, they were ], as ]. Well they've gone back to ]; their are a good sampler. Despite being ] that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have ] for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request. | |||
| *{{userlinks|KrakDuck}} | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Talk:Uchar-hadji}} | |||
| They clearly have extreme ] problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which ] Manual of Style violations of ]. Furthermore, in the light of ] (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their ] of the spin-off article ] might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. ] (]) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| User ] answers with direct attacks and insults towards me such as "it sounds idiotic", and "your hypocrisy", not the first time. - .--] (]) 12:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{midsize|(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.)}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment - . I would like to discuss a possible 1 month t-ban for both users. They have both been in the wrong and they both have been unofficially warned by other editors. This is now just disruptive editing. ] (]) 12:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. ] 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| First of all i never said you were idiotic, i said that the idea of there being NO Chechens in Aksay during the post you linked was idiotic since i posted several sources. It might have sounded more harsher than i intended so i will refrain from using such words in the future. My bad. Hello ], I see no reason to ban either of us to be honest. Despite this hiccup we are making progress in the talk page and ] has several times mediated and helped us come to a conclusion. We have already come to an agreement on 1 of the pages we disagreed on > https://en.wikipedia.org/Aukh and now the last one is in Uchar-Hadzhi which IrelandCork linked. Calthinius is looking over the sources and will make a decision soon. What if me, IrelandCork and Krackduck just dont write in that talk page anymore and let Calthinuis make his decision? then be on our way. --] (]) 15:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: I dont know if you have read our discussions but surely a 1 month ban wouldn't be fair? ] has been following our discussion very closely and i think it would be fair to have his input since he has probably read everything and is an unbiased mediator, wouldn't you agree? ] --] (]) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Per proposal. --] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Indeed, there's a bit of disruptive conduct, as Calthinus noted on the 18th, on the part of all. But on the surface much of this may be a product of inexperience on the part of all three users (IrelandCork, Krackduck and Goddard2000). I therefore gave a welcome message + DS/EE alert to all three. I've also warned (]) IrelandCork and Krackduck against adding comments inside of Goddard2000's own signed comments, which Goddard2000 rightly complained about multiple times (yet to no avail). | |||
| :'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. ♠]♠ ] 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: {{u|Tamborg}}, {{u|Bubfernr}}, and {{u|LatteDK}}. There may be others that I have missed. ] (]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My recommendation would be for all three to take a serious break from the page and gain some experience elsewhere, but I doubt that they'll go for that right now, as at least one side will probably feel too strongly about anything left outstanding. So, I will say this. Tone it down, please, all of you. There are ] you may avail yourself of when you reach an impasse on the article talk page, like ] or ]. And try to be more concise, so as to make such outside input into the content dispute more likely. ] 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support.''' <s>I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...</s> Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently ] Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen ]: ''"Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates"''. And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to ] ] articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps ]. Hopeless. Block. — ] (]) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with {{u|El C}}. A break is definitely in order. {{u|Goddard2000}} I suggested the 1 month T-ban (short for topic ban) as a way to force a break from the page. I am fine not doing a topic ban as long as all three editors don’t edit it for a while. A while doesn’t mean a week...it means 3+ weeks. I don’t know what your interests are in, in terms of editing Misplaced Pages, but if you want something that is completely different, feel free to join me on the ]. Either way, all 3 editors, {{u|Goddard2000}}, {{u|IrelandCork}}, & {{u|Krackduck}} should take a break from the page and if you can’t then a 1 month T-Ban should be handed out. ] (]) 16:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' - Gotta play by the rules. ] (]) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll just note that, as far as ] ]s go, I rarely set these to be less than 3 months at minimum. ] 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. ] (]) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a ] problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. ] (]) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] Yes i agree, lets leave it up to Calthinius on that page, we have nothing more to add. I will only post in the talk page if Calthinius asks me a question regarding the sources i posted. I wont talk to Krakduck or Irelandcork. --] (]) 18:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. ] (]) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed on restriction. But I'm rather surprised that WP:Ethics request is turned into content dispute again. It's completely another issue. Baseless comments like "idiotic" and "hypocrisy" and "you're presenting me Nazi" from an aggressive editor who barely keeps himself from swearing here are unacceptable. Besides, ], ], ], I gave Goddard's diffs with inappropriate behavior, two times, but being accused of it myself, wasn't referred to my inappropriateness even ones. Please kindly refer me to one so that I get what I've done wrong and what makes possible for you to ignore such harsh comments from the opponent.--] (]) 05:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::IrelandCork, as mentioned, it's best to move on from these grievances at this point. Also, I've joined in 2004 and became an admin in 2005, and I've never knew ] existed. Not sure what you're trying to say by invoking it (unethical behaviour?), but whatever it is, it isn't what the page is for. As it says at the top: ''This page is intended to serve as an index or collection of essays. It is not a policy or a guideline.'' ] 06:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] Sorry, it's not a grievance. I only wanted to understand what's the accusation based on and what exactly was wrong, so that I refrain from such in the future. Regarding WP:Ethics, I did not expect it's OK here to declare someone a "hypocrite, Nazi-caller", and one's words as "idiotic", in some other Misplaced Pages's, such as Russian, there are very strong policies of discussion etiquette. I wonder if I called him a hypocrite, a Nazi and an idiot, how it would be possible to be tolerated, for me it's just unacceptable, but that user took that disdainful tone as a rule of thumb. Obviously none will be happy to ever engage with him after such.--] (]) 07:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], the fact that you double-down on repeating these grievances (or whatever you call them) as a response to my message raises all sort of red flags for me, tbh. ] 11:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|IrelandCork}}, right now would be a perfect time for you to ] so you ]. Knowing an admin said "red flags for me" in the previous message, any more messages about the topic will probably be things you "shot yourself in the foot" on and you will regret those edits for a long time...talking from experience. ] (]) 12:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I also just discovered ], which was started by IrelandCork on March 17. {{u|El C}}, You might want to close it or investigate it farther. ] (]) 12:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] sorry, I don't get it at all. The last request was about showing me where my wrongdoing took place, to understand and to avoid such in the future. I've not insulted anyone, wasn't aggressive, disputed only one exact content issue, and tolerated repeated insults, but instead I get more and more warnings, and the root cause is still unknown. If it's difficult to show a diff, I'll be very grateful if at least a quote is given--] (]) 12:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Negative, ], you are not blameless, and the more you ] it up, the worse it looks for you. You (and Krackduck) intruded into Goddard2000's signed comments repeatedly (despite them rightly protesting against that violation), which is aggressive, whether you were aware of it at the time or not. But now you definitely ought to be and not pretend as if it didn't happen. ] 13:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Now I get it, even though it was quite a bit later than I was initially accused in smth., but let's leave it there. Thanks for taking time to explain!--] (]) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Hostilities resumed at ] <small>(])</small>. That stick didn't stay dropped for long. ] (]) 12:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Aimee Challenor == | |||
| More eyes desired at ], where the pageviews went from <200 a day to... . From what I can tell (which is not necessarily the full picture) it's ] inciting everyone's favourite type of user, a furious reddit dot com poster, to form a mob over some Extremely Important Reddit Drama. Only source about this as of time of writing is ''The Spectator'', not good for factual claims per ]. The sexual abuse committed by Challenor's father, and partner's tweets, however, are covered widely. Just want more eyes to look at edits as they come in as all new edits are BLP-sensitive and will be widely seen even if they only last for an hour, and to handle anything that's reaching revdel proportions. — ] (''']''') 13:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It's all over the front page of reddit, I doubt Linehan is a significant factor. The main issue is that reddit has attempted to oversight her name, and there's been a subsequent ], with many major subreddits temporarily shutting down. ] (]) 15:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::It started with Linehan's blog. I don't know or really care about the rest of the context, other than that it sounds like it could become big news, but it is not that big news yet. — ] (''']''') 15:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not where it started. It started when a moderator of /r/ukpolitics was banned for linking to an article in the Spectator magazine where, tangentially, a Reddit admin was named. The article didn't refer to the person as a Reddit admin and the moderator was unaware of the fact. In response to the banning, the other ukpolitics mods turned the subreddit private while they found out what had happened. Other subreddits also went private in solidarity. Yes, Linehan has picked up on it because of course he has, but that's not where it started. ] (]) 10:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Started is probably the wrong word, but it seems likely difficult to determine what role any particular outlet or whatever played in this. You could rule out certain stuff based on timings, but otherwise, how much of it was organic and how much of it was a result of promotion by others I doubt we'll ever know. ] (]) 13:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually, I looked into this better an Bilorv's comments seem fair enough and the IP is just wrong. Linehan was posting about this long before the Reddit stuff blew up. While it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure why anyone did any particular thing, it's clear Linehan didn't just pick up on it, he was already involved. Notably, even if the ukpolitics posting was unrelated to Linehan in any way, from what Reddit said it seems like there's a fair chance part of the reason for their reaction was because there was already concerns on their part due to what Linehan had been doing. ] (]) 14:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Admin backs admin. Film at 11. ] (]) 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Exactly 0 of the people in this discussion are administrators. Try again? --] (]) 23:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *More eyes on the article is what was requested and is what it got. Where the furore began off-wiki is of no importance here. --] (]) 07:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Jessiemay1984 unblocked == | |||
| Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, {{user|Jessiemay1984}} is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. ''']''' 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Jessiemay1984 unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 15:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == T. Silva == | |||
| Hi. I've listed an article on DRV ] (dated 14 March 2021) for review after ]. How long it takes usually before admin closes it? ] ] 17:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :A week, or when consensus seems clear, whichever comes last. This should probably be relisted as it is still being actively discussed. ] (]) 17:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] ] 17:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::DRV doesn't really relist. It just sits there in the ready to be closed pile until someone closes it (normally after discussion has died down). ] (]) 03:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == “Bentonville” entry error == | |||
| {{atop|1=Issues such as this should be raised at the talk page of the article in question or fixed directly. I fixed the sentence by removing the ", either by Union soldiers part". Closing. --] (]) 12:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| This sentence from “Bentonville” history is incomplete. | |||
| Although no Civil War battles were fought inside Bentonville, the city was occupied by both armies and saw almost all of its buildings burned, either by Union soldiers. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :<small>(non-admin comment)</small> This is probably best discussed at that articles talk page rather than here. ''] ] <sup>|</sup> ]'' 07:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| Mention ] when you get to the talk page. ] (]) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== User:TWC DC1 == | ||
| ] move to ] without any discussion, this person ] move the page without any discussion. and idk how to move page with history, can someone move it back to ] ] (]) 12:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :This sounds like a good case for a ]. ] (]) 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Sabotage in Article ], by ] == | |||
| {{atop | {{atop | ||
| | result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = ]! <sup><small>]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-12ex"><small>a ] franchise</small></sub> (]) 15:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| I recommend issuing a warning to ], as their actions appear to be ]. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --] (]) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == G7 request by a blocked account == | |||
| {{atop|1=G7'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can an admin take a look at ]? It appears to be a "]" request for ]. -- ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — ] ] 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I was adding resources to the ], the user without even looking at the sources, and is looking for an editing war. Stop this vicious user once and for all, who ruins all my efforts with the push of a button. Note that I added authoritative sources to the article and the user did not even look at them. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : again and no one stops him. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I'm not a he but this user is a long term abuser, see ]. ] 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :And now this IP is globally blocked, so this should probably be closed. ] 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Sapo.pt == | |||
| == 2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation == | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}} | |||
| Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proxy question == | |||
| Editors are invited to provide feedback in the ''']''', which is open until April 25, 2021. | |||
| I recently enabled the and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., {{redacted}}). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? ] ] 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This consultation is part of the Arbitration Committee's ] for the ], which sets forth a special set of rules that apply in topic areas defined by the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of this revision process is to simplify and clarify the procedure and resolve problems with the current system of discretionary sanctions. | |||
| :You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? ] ] 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. ] (]/]) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK thank you! ] ] 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|EvergreenFir}} Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last ''x'' days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software ''y''", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of {{slink|foundation:Legal:Wikimedia_IP_Information_Tool_Policy#Use_and_disclosure_of_IP_information}} is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. {{small|I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally.}} ] | ] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. ] (]) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Over on ] we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO | |||
| :::::::::Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated ] ] 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that ''IP Info says'' an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated ] ] 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Undeletion + XML export request == | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation}}'''<!-- ] (]) 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of ], use ], and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Large batch deletion probably needed == | |||
| : I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. ] ] 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Done}}; ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19 == | |||
| For some background, see ] and ]. The former link involves the discovery of large quantities of misinterpretation of a source an original research to create a couple thousand place stubs in California that largely turned out to be barely verifiable, false, or non-notable, probably well over 1,000 have been deleted, created by a single user, Carlossuarez46. It is the latter one that is causing this report, though. It was found that something similar happened with creating short stubs from a directory of ''abadi''s in Iran - an abadi is a very generic term that in Iran can refer to everything from decent-sized cities to wells, farms, individual buildings, and ]. At ], it was found that Carlossuarez46 created over 5,500 stubs for ''abadi''s '''that are uninhabited'''. While some ''abadi''s are notable, given the background of these, it seems unlikely that any of the ones that are uninhabited are notable, which is the consensus of that AFD. There's no way that 5500+ articles can reasonably be processed through AFD and PROD, so it's looking like a batch deletion of this mess is the best call. I believe there's a list of the relevant ones in existence somewhere. ] <sub> ]</sub> 00:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The list of articles to be deleted (linked at the AFD) is at ]. I removed the three pages I found that had additional content beyond the original creation, and others with further information may also be exempted from such soft deletion. Carlossuarez46 altogether made about ''70,000'' articles ] on places in Iran from 2011 to 2014 using the 2006 census, and I did not find any approval to do so in accordance with ]. While the discussion linked above indicates half of these tens of thousands of places with are not actually "villages" in Iran (may include e.g. neighborhoods and census tracts) and their status and notability are likewise questionable, these 5,500+ pages have no population reported and are not conceivably auto-passes of ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nacmt}} I've noticed a lot of stubs about misidentified populated places, usually in California, in ] for several months now. Based on the aforementioned evidence, I recommend that Carlossuarez46 be banned from creating articles about places. Thoughts? –] (]]) 02:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Mass creation seems to have stopped in April 2020 with a run of stubs for ancient sites, so I'm not sure that an article creation ban would be necessary. ] <sub> ]</sub> 03:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are large blocks of items beginning with the same word, which likely identifies what they actually are; for instance, place names beginning with <code>Chah-e</code> are most likely wells. I'll ping... {{user|Paraw}}, the only active user who is fa-N, to scan the list and identify such prefixes so that they can be processed in bulk AfD or mass PROD. Which items on the list reported a population of 0 in the 2016 census, like the farm named in the AfD? –] (]]) 07:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Everything listed at ], which currently contains 5573 items. 244 contain the string "chah-e" somewhere in the title. ] <sub> ]</sub> 07:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' all 5573 article I think we have explained all in a/m talking and we ask and recommend the mess deletion of no notable, no village and no populated articles. Please '''Delete''' all 5573 article. In FAwiki, as last talking there is Consensus that Abadies there aren't notable.@] ] 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| I have no objection to a mass deletion (we did the same in the past for other similar issues with 1000s of articles by other editors), but an alternative may be to mass-move them to draftspace: that way, people have six months to rescue ones which are mistakenly moved or which they have edited. After six months, the remainder will get deleted anyway. Perhaps other groups of articles by the same editor need to be looked at as well, something like ] gives little confidence, so perhaps all '''233 articles with the sentence "suspected that this village has undergone a name change"''' should be deleted or draftified as well? These are in Azerbaijan and Artsakh, so not duplicates of the above proposal. ] (]) 08:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps someone could take a look at ]? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- ] (]) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed, I'd say '''delete all'''. It is likely that none of these places are actual villages, just as most of the California places are ]s. One item mentioned in the AfD, ], geolocates to an . –] (]]) 08:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I can delete the articles no problem, but I do not have capacity to go through all of them to see what it salvageable and what is not. If there is consensus that all of them have to be deleted, no problem, but I remember that with Sander v Ginkel articles, which I also batch deleted (after time was given to improve them) people were still unhappy with the deletion. May be just move them to draft and let sit there for six months before getting deleted?--] (]) 08:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *We have come a long way since it was alright to mass-create articles for places, and experience has taught us some lessons about cleaning up the resultant inaccuracies. It's not ''completely'' clean-cut, though and I point to {{On AFD|Robert, California}} as a counterpoint. For safety, I recommend restricting any mass deletion to articles that ''don't tell the reader anything beyond'' the shaky claims about being villages. If the statement that "X is a village" is shaky in the first place, then an article that says "X is a village and nothing else is recorded about it" isn't particularly useful. Although ] did start out that way, as you can see at ].<p>Robert, California was a GNIS inaccuracy. Compare {{On AFD|Acodale, Virginia}} in that regard. <p> ] (]) 08:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * '''Delete all''' Native Farsi speaker here. Please just delete them all. No more discussions or hesitations. I checked ] with , and all of them should be gone, except ''']'''. You can check it yourself. Go to the <code>Templates&links</code> tab and insert "User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported" in the field <code>All of these pages:</code> from the row <code>Linked from</code>. Then go to the <code>Page properties</code> tab and specify a size <code>Larger or equal</code> than 3000, 2900, 2800, ... 2000 respectively and check it for yourself. ] (]) 09:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I removed the additional content from that article - the sources mention other places with the same name: one uses the name to refer to ], two refer to ], and one probably refers to ]. There was one I couldn't check but it is a self-published source. ] (]) 08:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * ], a typical ''ābādī'' in Iran]]] has a nice photo, and you can see for yourself what a typical ''ābādī'' looks like in Iran! ] (]) 09:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I wondered why we didn't ask Carlossuarez46, an active editor and admin, to help clean up his own mess and to go through his creations and delete G7 or draftify all problematic or potentially problematic ones. Turns out that he was contacted about these specific articles (which follow the many similar deletions of US locations he created), at ]. His responses there are extremely disheartening though, and the callous disrespect he shows for basic collegiality, sourcing requirements, ... is rather concerning in an admin. He could save us all a lot of work (he should have done so when the first deletions started to happen), but he doesn't seem to care about this at all. ] (]) 09:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Absolutely subpar responses. It isn't realistic to expect individual review for each page of such a massive number of pages, when an error rate for these reaches a certain threshold. ] 13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Not to be "that guy", but if you don't understand that a Census tract is not automatically notable, perhaps you don't need to have the Autopatrolled bit, no less the admin bit. At this point, I'm forced to agree with mass deletion as I don't think our Draft: system needs to be flooded. Seeing the discussion on his personal talk page did not fill me with hope that he is willing or capable of reviewing these articles himself. This would make me also support a sanction to prohibit article creation outside of draft space, which is very problematic for someone with the admin bit, but seemingly necessary. ] - ] 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * So, to summarise, so far we have mass creation of California place stubs based on the GNIS database, a lot of which have now been deleted as misidentified railroad sidings/ponds/post offices, a mass creation of Iranian place stubs based purely off the census records, thousands of which appear to be misidentified farms/gas stations/isolated buildings, and looking at the recent edit history of ] and it's associated ] it looks like there ''may'' be issues with their Armenian place stubs as well (again this is an article created using only a place name database). I think this is going to need a major clean up effort - we are dealing with potentially thousands of hoax geography stubs here. Kind of reminds me of the Neelix case from a few years back. ] (]) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support deletion''' Having spot-checked the list, these articles don't meet Misplaced Pages's standards for verifiability and should be deleted. I also agree with Dennis Brown that based on their comments on their talk page on this topic, Carlossuarez probably should not be auto-patrolled. ] (power~enwiki, ], ]) 16:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** If {{ping|Carlossuarez46}} has anything more to say, it should be said here and now. ] (power~enwiki, ], ]) 18:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support mass deletion''' of ]. They don't need to be checked further. When Carlos writes "population not reported", it means the census data said ''less than 3 families'' – so obviously not a "village" as claimed. Spot checks by multiple users have confirmed that they are not remotely close to meeting ]. The problem is that the Iranian census describes both populated and unpopulated places with the same word, ''abadi'' (see from {{u|4nn1l2}} for useful context), and according to one source up to 25% are "non-residential". The tens of thousands of other articles also need to be dealt with, but this list is a good first step. Thanks to {{u|Hog Farm}} and {{u|Reywas92}} for compiling it. – ] <small>(])</small> 16:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:On the broader issue, I was really hoping that Carlos would be more receptive to helping clean these up. We all make mistakes and if you're mass-creating articles (which I think is usually a very valuable contribution), it's understandable that a simple mistake can create a big mess. As an admin, he could easily have acknowledged the problem and ]'d them all, saving everyone all this trouble. Instead he flat out refused to listen, insisting that other editors laboriously "prove" that each place wasn't notable individually, even after he'd been presented with ample reliable sources showing that they were not notable as a rule, and it had been explained that the ] is on him to substantiate his claims. I don't want to drag anyone to ArbCom over something like, but yeah... autopatrolled is bundled with the sysop bit, so it technically is ], and I worry about him going on another stub creation spree with no oversight. – ] <small>(])</small> 17:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support mass deletion''' I have participated in a few Afd's for these articles, It's about time that someone brought this to administrator attention. I would even support some sort of block for disruptive editing.--](]-]) 18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support mass deletion''' of the pages compiled by Hogfarm. ''] ] <sup>|</sup> ]'' 18:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *This is an odd can of worms we've opened. If this were not an admin, I would have already removed the autopatrolled bit from the editor without discussion. Because they are an admin, only Arb can authorize a bit change, and since autopatrolled is automatically included with the admin bit, they would have to remove the admin bit. Without further evidence of gross incompetence or abuse of the admin bit, I don't see this happening. The same for sanctioning an admin. Conventional wisdom has always been that if you can't trust an admin to operate without being under sanction, you can't trust them with the admin bit. {{u|Carlossuarez46}} is walking a very fine line here, and if I were them, I would be volunteering to never create articles outside of draft space, rather than risk a sanction and possible Arb case to review their bits. If one of the "community desysop" discussions had ended with the community being granted the ability to desysop someone because they lost in faith in them, this would be a textbook case, although I don't pretend to know the outcome in either case. ] - ] 21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * The more I think about this, '''some sort of sanction on creating articles is needed'''. See their responses to the questions about them in the California place names one I linked in the starting post here, or in the places in Iran one. They went on a CFD editing run per their contribs after I notified them about starting this AN discussion. And these 5500 are just the tip of the iceberg. There are tens of thousands of stubs they created that are still dubious, just not quite as bad as this batch request. And they won't provide helpful answers to basic requests about this. IMO this is a ] issue. Given the sheer amount of poor quality article creation and lack of communication to questions about it, there should be a restriction on creation of geography stubs - a requirement to send new geography articles through AFC sounds reasonable to me. ] <sub> ]</sub> 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** I think that a AFC requirement or removal of autopatrolled are fundamentally incompatible with being an administrator, for an administrator being trusted to be able to write articles is the bare minimum we should expect. I also don't think the proposed restrictions really get to the crux of the issue: the problem here was the mass creation of stub articles based only on database entries. I think a better set of restrictions would be a ban on article creation using automated or semi-automated tools and a requirement that any new articles they make have multiple substantial sources in them (as in sources containing a significant quantity of prose). ] (]) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support batch deletion''' - I was initially against this idea but I now can't see any alternative. Having reviewed and PRODed many of the offending articles, I now see that it will take several weeks to getting around to properly looking at them all. Since they make no valid claim to notability, the chances of any of them actually being notable is low enough that I think the positives of batch deletion outweigh the negatives significantly. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Speaking as the person who just fixed ], I point out that the problem is ''not notability'', and there is a significant likelihood that some of these places ''are notable''. The problem is that we have one-sentence articles hanging around for years (almost 13 years in the case of {{On AFD|Azizkend}}) where that one sentence is an ''outright falsehood'', because the source databases were not properly filtered and everything was labelled "populated place" or "unincorporated community". I think that you'll get wide agreement on mass-deleting one-sentence articles whose dodgy mass-creation makes them likely false. Don't make it about things being "just a mill" or "just a railway station", and about notability, though, ''especially'' if arguing in the same breath about how great a burden it is to evaluate notability of all of these subjects. ] But you will get consensus on long-standing one-sentence likely falsehoods with shaky foundations. ] (]) 11:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Concerning community restrictions: It is true that only ArbCom can currently desysop (the last community desysop proposal is still open, but is certain to fail, like its predecessors). However, if needed, we can just impose a ban on creation on the articles. A ban violation would be a solid ground for a desysop. However, I do not see any issues with the recent article creation, and I do not see why such topic ban would be needed, In fact, Carlossuarez does not now create any articles, for the last year I only see one, which is a dab and is completely uncontroversial. All the articles we are talking about are from the 2000s, and I do not see any current need of a ban.--] (]) 07:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support sanctions on Carlossuarez46'''. He made a big mistake and now even cleaning up his mess gives us headache. I PRODed 100 farms and wells (''mazraeh'' and ''chah'') but by another contributor who claims these ''abadi''s pass ]. Being unwilling to clean up his own mess, Carlos has wasted a lot of valuable volunteers' time. The fact that he has not contributed to this thread so far means a lot to me! ] (]) 10:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **The PROD reasons were probably unclear as the articles say "village" and give the population from a census, which would make them notable. Some of them seem to be hamlets or something similar, but others are only farms. ] (]) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{u|4nn1l2}} - I doubt any of them will go 7 days uncontested. AfD is probably the appropriate avenue since there is a claim to notability. I suspect many of them will be deleted at AfD, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****<small>I'm the PROD remover</small>{{Ping|4nn1l2|Peter James}} indeed all the articles that I de-proded stated that they were villages and they also had a number of families. If they are an exception to the general rule that legally recognized places are notable then probably needs to be discussed at a bundled AFD nomination not PROD. I think its fairly likely the rest of the PRODs will be contested by Necrothesp or Phil Bridger or someone else anyway. In any case although we may make an exception that a place that is just a well or petrol station isn't notable even if its legally recognized if we assess that its an exception there's no requirement that a place has people living there to be notable under GEOLAND. ''']''' (]) 17:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****I think that you've missed the thrust of the argument here, possibly because those Proposed Deletion nominations didn't give it. It's not whether these places are notable. It's that the articles have been mass-created as ''bad stubs'' that give ''incorrect context'', because everything has been translated to "village". The problem is that editors do not have the correct context to even begin working on the articles. ] is actually a pump, for example. But an editor looking to do cleanup or expansion won't know it from the bad stub at hand, which says that it's a "village" and leaves it at that. There are over 5000 articles in this class. ] (]) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support mass deletion and topic ban on geo article creation''' I support mass deletion of the articles, and I also think that Carlos deserves some sort of sanction. I'd be in favor of a a topic ban on creating new geography articles because of the degree of disruption that the non notable stubs have caused, and I think that that would be the '''minimum''' that we would be considering if this were a regular user and not an admin. ( I have to imagine that a new user would get a disruptive editing block for creating this many non notable articles and refusing to clean them up.) ] (]) 13:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Wait''' I see many problems but I'd like to do a history check. This will take some hours, maybe days. For example ] which {{U|4nn1l2}} linked above had a that should support the place having a population. Per ], I guess that particular one should be kept. (or at least its deletion discussed individually) Here's a quick (rather likely incomplete) list of articles that include sources other than the default: ]. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Alexis Jazz}}, you have certainly become old, <s>man</s>! You used to be a Commoner and are well aware of . The Alexis Jazz I knew didn't need some hours (days) to check the status of these articles. <s>He was</s><ins>They were</ins> able to be done with it in less than 10 minutes. According to the English Misplaced Pages, the UK has only 3700+ hamlets, but Carlos has made 70,000+ articles on Iranian ''ābādī''s! Both Iran and the UK belong to the ], so what Carlos about the ] does not apply here. ] (]) 15:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{ping|4nn1l2}} Getting vilified causes one's hairs to turn grey. I have rarely found Petscan to be of any use over CirrusSearch, personally. I can't use it to do a history check. The kind of checks I ran on Commons also often took a while. I agree that likely 90%+ of Hog Farm's list should be deleted, but I'd like to filter out the <10% that should be kept or discussed. Btw, feel free to use something from ]. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 17:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Fixed. I always use neutral pronouns on Commons. I don't know why I switched to "he" on the English Misplaced Pages. Sorry for that! ] (]) 17:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Thank you. I'm running the thing now. It takes hours because a) of the sheer number of articles (dealing with 5000+ pages wasn't a common occurrence, even on Commons) b) I'm doing a history check, which is slow. c) There are other things I have to do, I'm spending somewhat less time on wiki nowadays. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 00:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support sanctions and mass deletion''' I'm glad to see interest in addressing disruptive mass stub creation, and admin status should be no barrier to the article creation restrictions which are clearly necessary here. It's unfair for an editor who mass-creates thousands of articles from tables (which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per ]) to demand that others do the work of searching exhaustively to ''disprove'' notability. Mass-created geography stubs are a widespread problem and a huge time sink since some editors insist on article-by-article deletion instead of PROD or batch work. In my opinion we should have a general rule or process that allows geo stubs to be deleted immediately, with no WP:BEFORE requirement, if they are sourced only to databases. The few notable articles that may exist are useless as long as they're buried under a massive pile of crap. Any editor who would like to search for these hidden gems is welcome to look through the easily-accessible databases and recreate them with better sourcing. –] ] 05:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I am agree with this. ] 10:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support batch deletion and sanction''' - I came to this as someone who is far from a deletionist. Indeed I have been accused on more than one occasion of being some kind of inclusionist. The thing was I started seeing lots of California location articles showing up at AFD that were by the same creator, and written using the same unreliable sources. My efforts to try to save these articles quickly turned into a conclusion that every one of them had the same problem - the editor who created them basically hadn't cared about even the most basic rules of notability and verifiability, and had systematically mischaracterised what a source they had regularly cited (Durham) was actually saying. Diving deeper I saw that the creator was one of Wiki's most prolific article-creators and had created many other location articles all around the world many of which appeared to have similar problems. Reaching out to the creator I saw that they were basically dismissive of any requests for help with dealing with the problems that they had created. Further checking showed that, as a direct result of their negligent editing, some counties of California had more "ghost town" articles (places that they couldn't find population data for ended up being labelled this) that inhabited places - a clearly ridiculous situation. | |||
| :The Iranian articles are a very extreme case of this negligence. Carlos claims to be able to read Persian, yet they did not notice that they were creating thousands of places with names like "Well no. 3" and "Mechanic Hoseyn Sohrabi", each of which blatantly says that is not populated and may never have been populated according to the sources they relied on to write the article. These articles simply have to go - the only thing I'd like to do is just to check that these are only the articles where Carlos was the creator, since he has edited his phrase stating that the location is not populated into a few GNG-passing articles he did not create. | |||
| :We should not forget that this negligent editing can have real-world consequences. Wiki's location data gets mirrored onto e.g., Google Maps and you can end up with people going to places thinking they are populated but which are in reality open desert. For this reason, although many of these articles were created some time ago and Carlos has not created any recently, as their negligent editing in 2009-2014 is still having an impact today which they refuse to do anything about it, I support sanctions against Carlos. Frankly, I would support Desysoping him due to a failure of accountability (]), but if this is not possible I would support removing autopatrolled from them. If an Admin without autopatrolled is somewhat unusual, this can be raised with Arbcom.] (]) 07:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === The articles, specifically === | |||
| {{for|the article creator|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Suggested edit restriction for Carlossuarez46}} | |||
| ] has raised what to do about the article creator <s>on another noticeboard</s> ], so I'd like to focus back on the original request by Hog Farm and Reywas92, which is what to do ''about the articles'' in the list at ]. | |||
| Summarizing the above so far: | |||
| * It appears that we have 9 people supporting mass deletion of the articles on that specific list; and 1 wanting to do more checking xyrself. | |||
| * The Proposed Deletions that there is disagreement over, such as ], appear to have been of articles ''not on this list''. | |||
| * Ymblanter has offered to do the mass-deletion if there is agreement. | |||
| Any people opposed? | |||
| Any more people wanting to do some checking for themselves? | |||
| Obviously, there's no rush to closure here; we give AFD discussions a week, after all. | |||
| I'm just trying to keep focus on the original proposal and whether there is consensus supporting an administrator doing this. | |||
| ] (]) 08:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Uncle G}} I would like to confirm your second point. For PRODing 100 articles, I went after specific articles with special conditions. First, all of nominations have the terms ''mazraeh'' and ''chah'' (farm and well respectively) in their names. Second, they had some population, because I assumed and still assume the 5000+ "uninhabited" ''abadi''s are definitely gone sooner or later, so I spared them. Third, I nominated those with a population of less than 100 people and 20 families, because Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families ''according to the law''. See my comments ] and ] to become more familiar with Iranian villages. We don't have the concept of ] in Iran (except in ] and ] which have a Mediterranean climate). Generalizing this Anglo-Norman concept to ''arid'' Iran is a kind of Eurocentrism. Settlements in Iran are basically of two kinds: 1) cities ; 2) villages . We don't differentiate between towns and cities. We don't have communities or concepts such as incorporated, chartered, etc. Everyone should read about Iranian villages. The following paragraph is of interest: | |||
| *:{{tqb|The basic statistical unit. Much of the available information about rural areas in Persia and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan has been collected at the village level. As delimitation of villages varies according to different government sources, however, that is not a guarantee of accuracy. Uncertainty is greatest in the Caspian lowlands and Ḡilzay country, where the so-called “villages” are generally artificial groupings of maḥallas (see, e.g., Bazin, 1980, I, pp. 100-01) and qalʿas respectively. In other areas, too, it is often difficult to ascertain whether a small settlement is an independent village or a mazraʿa attached to a larger village nearby (see, e.g., Patzelt and Senarclens de Grancy, p. 225). Gazetteers of inhabited places in Persia thus include from 14,721 (Mofaḵḵam Pāyān) to 80,717 names (Pāpolī Yazdī, 1989), and estimates of the total number of villages range from 42,000 to 58,000. A figure of 48,592 was used by the Persian government for purposes of land reform (McLachlan, p. 686). In Afghanistan conflicting figures have been published: In 1339 Š./1960 the Ministry of agriculture and irrigation enumerated 14,205 villages (Survey), a figure that was increased to 15,270 after the agricultural census of 1346 Š./1967 (Natāyej); the Ministry of interior, on the other hand, listed 20,753 villages, of which 15,599 were classified as “independent villages” and 5,154 as “associated subvillages” (Aṭlas). Although the Ministry of agriculture’s figures for villages and the Ministry of interior’s enumeration of “independent villages” are similar, they only partly coincide. Combining both lists would produce a total of 22,425 inhabited places (computed from Aṭlas). '''It is thus necessary to use the data from gazetteers with caution.'''}} | |||
| *The article is a bit old. It dates back to 1994. According to the latest data, Iran has . Now Carlos should explain how he managed to create 70,000 articles on Iranian "villages". ] (]) 09:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Not in this section. ☺ Let's keep it just to the articles and getting a consensus on what we do to them. It looks like there's a case to be made for ] et al. creating ''another'' list. But Proposed Deletion rationales would need to explain ''all of that'' and not just be "]". Because if people don't get a decent rationale they ''will not know all of that'' and will work from what the article says on its face. I suggest that you work with Hog Farm et al. on another list, for a second discussion, and we focus here on ] initially. I also suggest that you update any still active unchallenged Proposed Deletion rationales of yours to at least point to ]. ] (]) 11:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***Done. ] (]) 13:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Some of the places are groups of houses separate from other groups of houses; if these places are not hamlets, are too small to be villages, and "farm" is inaccurate, what would they be described as? ] (]) 07:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Uncle G}} I have finally filtered Hog Farm's list down to 10%. I created a list of 528 pages: ]. These all have something odd in the page history. Examples: | |||
| **] and ]: created by ]. Never edited by Carlos. But it follows the same style. So... wut? | |||
| **]: created by {{U|Arash}}, also in the same style, later edited by Carlos. | |||
| **]: created by {{np|Passportguy}}. | |||
| **]: edited by {{U|4nn1l2}} | |||
| **]: edited by anons. | |||
| **]: extensively vandalized (I filtered a bunch of vandalism, but unfortunately the "Reverted" tag was not made available retroactively. The list could have been shorter otherwise.) | |||
| *We should take a closer look at these 528. Some additional filtering may be possible. (please ping me with suggestions)<p>] is a copy of ] without these 528. The 5038 titles on the new list have only been edited by Carlos, bots, WikiGnomes, vandals and people who revert vandals.<p>If someone who is normally a WikiGnome actually added a source in some instances, sadly I couldn't realistically differentiate between that. I filtered all edits from known WikiGnomes. There's other theoretical issues (every edit before a revert was also filtered, but someone adding a source right before someone else reverts an earlier edit is probably extremely rare), but the lists should mostly be accurate. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 20:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{re|Alexis Jazz}} I have indeed ] ], but what does that mean to you? New counties/townships (شهرستان) get created in Iran by splitting, etc. ] was created in 2011. Carlos has used the data of the 2006 census when this abadi was in another county. I just updated the data in 2017. Why didn't I react back then? See my comment ] near the facepalm and you will understand why this topic matters to me now. I was not and still am not an editor of the English Misplaced Pages, so why should I care? ] (]) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{re|4nn1l2}} It could indicate that there's something special about the article, but in this case you were a WikiGnome. I'm thinking of some better/other ways to filter. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **I have two questions: | |||
| ***Hog Farm, Reywas92, 4nn1l2, et al.: Is this list of 528 articles small enough for you three (and whomever else) to review by hand? | |||
| ***Alexis Jazz: Do you think that Hog Farm's list should be reduced by these 528 articles?<p>I ask because I looked through some of the ones that you mentioned and I'm not yet convinced that we have a case for removing them. That ] used the same prose wording for the likes of "]" and called it a "village" with "population not reported" only emphasizes the robotic nature of these contributions, and that this is boilerplate wording constructed from a problematic source database. And the source cited at ] is a WWW page that gives a Google Maps reference to a farm, emphasizing the fact that there's an echo chamber of bad information on the WWW that we at Misplaced Pages are part of. | |||
| ** ] (]) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *** I think it can be trimmed a little bit. ] is just Carlos, bots, a gnoming edit, and somebody adding a hatnote. ] is Carlos, two bots, a AWB run, and a gnoming edit. ] is Carlos, the same AWB run, three bots, somebody changing the spelling in a category, and somebody reverting said change. There's a few others like those. The 528 list looks pretty close, although there's some false positives in there. ] <sub> ]</sub> 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **** I personally am still persuaded by your argument that a collection of articles calling things like "]" and "]" (]) a "village" are bad stubs with falsehoods as their context. ☺ So perhaps that 528 article list can be re-filtered, at least for the obvious groups with falsehoods revealed by their titles. ] (]) 23:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{re|Hog Farm}} ] is on the list because of Prana1111's edit. (I already filtered M.k.m2003 as a WikiGnome) ] is on the list only because of the edit by SACRED. ] includes a manual revert, if Bearcat had reverted NikolayEfesenko (or the "reverted" and "manual revert" tags would be available everywhere) it wouldn't have made the list. I can probably filter small edits (like these -4 overlinking edits, edits marked as minor were already excluded but these were not marked as minor) and I think there are some other ways to get that 528 further down. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****:Would it be possible to exclude anything with the AWB tag, as well? Anything done with Auto Wiki Browser is likely to be gnoming, formatting, or something minor like that. ] <sub> ]</sub> 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Hog Farm}} That was already excluded. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] closures == | |||
| *'''Comment''' - {{tq|"Never edited by Carlos. But it follows the same style. So... wut?"}} - It is not a surprise to see other editors creating articles in the same style as Carlos, people learn how to write articles from other editors on Wiki, particularly admins. This is why this behaviour is so harmful. ] (]) 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}} | |||
| ===Suggested edit restriction for Carlossuarez46=== | |||
| 2 sections ] and ](MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions. | |||
| :''] (]) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)]'' | |||
| I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| After reading this: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I suggest an edit restriction is put in place that requires Carlossuarez46 to inform the community before mass-creating articles and give the community a reasonable amount of time to respond, Carlossuarez46 should explain based on what they will be creating articles and how they can ensure that the articles they create will be accurate and about notable subjects. Carlossuarez46 should also respect the comments on these announcements. | |||
| I have kept the details deliberately vague, as is usual to avoid gaming the system. We're all grownups (right? right?) and the goal of this restriction is simply to make sure we won't suddenly have ''another'' 5000+ dubious stubs that may require mass deletion. | |||
| I am aware {{U|Carlossuarez46}} is an admin, and as usual, I don't care. Adminship doesn't make one immune from edit restrictions. If they stop being an admin in the future for any reason, that wouldn't affect this edit restriction. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 03:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :When reporting someone to ANI, you '''must''' let them know on their talk page. I've done this already, so don't worry! ] (]│]) 04:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. ] (]/]) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry I completely forgot! Thanks for filling in for me! — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 05:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? ] (]) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. ] (]/]) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I support too. Even he don't response to talk in a/m boards.] 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I decline your request to withdraw. ] makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. ] (]) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support stronger sanction: no article creation outside of AFC''' - Normally, I would not support sanctions on edits this old, but this is the type of action that might go unnoticed for years, and it indicates a lack of understanding of our general policies on article creation. Personally, I think this sanction is too weak. That they are an admin only makes the point stronger that a sanction is needed. Admin are supposed to know better. I would support this sanction, the stronger sanction I am recommending, or even stronger sanctions. The fact that they have been editing yet refused to participate in this discussion, thus avoiding all accountability for their actions, makes me think they shouldn't be an admin at all. ] - ] 11:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. ] (]/]) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support stronger sanction''' I would prefer Dennis Brown's stronger sanction to the originally proposed ones, but if Dennis' don't pass then I would support Alexis Jazz's sanctions because something needs to be done about this, and Carlos shouldn't get off scott free just because they are an admin after causing this much disruption through creation of thousands of articles and refusing to clean them up. ] (]) 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. ] (]) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support stronger sanction: no article creation outside of AFC''' - The question is ''can we trust them to create articles that are not formally reviewed''? Since ''almost all'' of there article creation is this sort of stub, and discussions have been going on on their talk page for months about there mass-created articles, in which they have not recognized that any of this creation is problematic in any way, I don't think I can trust them to create articles that then sit around for years and spread false content. To show the full extent of this mess, compare to ]. Thanks to mass creation, azbwikipedia and zhwikipedia now have articles claiming that an obvious non-community Carlossuarez46's mass creation of stubs has essentially polluted the entire internet with false content. ] <sub> ]</sub> 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :So much for cooperation... <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. He has created lots of 1 or 2 sentence stub articles and many of them are suspected hoaxes and are getting nominated for deletion. He only uses 1 source, from the GEONet server and most of the time doesn't cite sources, and when he does they are unreliable like that was politically biased. I think we should prevent him from making articles or even de-adminship. ] <sup>]</sup>. Thanks, 20:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC). | |||
| ::Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. ] (]/]) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Lately I've been adding information on the composition of hundreds (if not more) of settlements in Iran. I can see that I have also edited some of the settlements where the population varies from 0 to 3, which just means that a reliable reference have not only recognized their existence but also their composition. --] (]) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::May be I should have more specifically mentioned ] (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** You edited "]" (c.f. ]) and called it a "village", citing an aggregation WWW site that cites Google Maps, and hence ''Misplaced Pages'', as one of its sources. You seem to be making ''the very same errors'' as Carlossuarez46, just more indirectly, and should probably take a lot more care. ] (]) 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. ] (]/]) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{u|Uncle G}} I'll take a look at the edits I made at these troubled pages (]) and try to verify the 'village'-ness or revert my edits. I can see that I haven't edited that many of them. Regarding Cham-e Abbas Ali, I will revert my edits made since I must have mistaken it for another settlement in the area. I can't seem to find it in the source either. --] (]) 10:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. ] (]) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ****I found ] (or Owzā Dudarā) and it is stated that it has a population of 24. Searching its coordinations ('31.36302, 50.81570') on Google Maps gives this result which to me does look like a populated place. --] (]) 10:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. ] (]) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Let me formally '''oppose''' per my reasoning above. The real problem here is not that Carlossuarez46 created a bunch of purely sourced stubs in 2006. At that time, we still did not understand very well what can be done and what can not be done, and whereas there is no way someone would create such stubs today, it was not uncommon at the time (you know, eventualists, article rescue squadron and so on). The problem is not that Carlossuarez46 continues to create stubs of doubtful quality, because he does not. In the last year, he created only one article which is a dab, and the quality is ok. Ban for article creation is not going to solve any problems. We could also propose a topic ban for Iran, we have even general sanctions in the are, and such topic ban would equally not solve anything, because Carlossuarez46 is not editing in the area. The problem is that currently Carlossuarez46 refuses to discuss the issue and do something about this. On top of this, Carlossuarez46 is administrator, and I see here breach of ADMINCONDUCT. I think the only issue to be discussed here which solves a real problem is a desysop, and then someone should prepare and file an ArbCom case. May be we are not yet ready for arbitration, then this thread must be closed with a formal warning, or may be a block if people think it is acceptable (I do not see why we need a block here, but I understand that other opinions are possible), but I do not see why we need a topic ban on article creation in this situation.--] (]) 21:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of ] . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **The Iranian stubs have been created in 2014 using old data from the 2006 census while the data of the 2011 census was available. ] (]) 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said ] to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". ] (]/]) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *** Yes, I see indeed 2012-2013-2014. This does not change the rest of my argument though.--] (]) 21:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. ] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Respectfully, ], I think the fact that this activity lasted for almost a decade, during which time the person concerned was an Admin and expected to be familiar with ] (already a guideline in 2007) and ] (created as an essay in 2008, promoted to guideline in 2010), and which many times the problems with their articles were pointed out to them (see e.g., ]). One of the worst periods for Carlos's article creation activities appears to have been in July 2009 ] - I don't think I am breaking ] by saying that their article-creation activities were likely motivated in part by a desire to score highly on that board rather than being here to create an encyclopedia (i.e., they have been ] for more than a decade). ] (]) 08:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{outdent|1}} Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. ] (]/]) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support stronger sanctions''' ] Carlossuarez46 has been completely dismissive of anyone who suggested that his article creations were questionable, consistently refusing to acknowledge that his mass-productions include errors or fail to demonstrate verifiability and/or notability. His continued rebuffing of those who have put in far too many man-hours cleaning up his mess is callous and unbecoming. Looking at the logs, Carlos has not used admin actions in many years, other than to delete pages to make way for moves of his mass-creations, so perhaps he doesn't need those privileges! Very sad to see downright false information not just here but on Wikidata and other languages that is even harder to fix due to his sheer incompetence and refusal to conduct adequate verification before mass-spamming of articles, even after being informed of the problems! ]<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. ] (]) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** ] ] Oh dear. Well defended, Mav. ]. ] (]) 21:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I would like to comment on the possibility of an Arbcom case here. I would support anyone proposing a possible Arbcom case request in addition, but not in place of, community sanctions, for the purpose of determining if this is enough for a desysop. I doubt that Arbcom would ultimately decide that a Desysop is warranted since the misuse of article creation occurred years ago, but I think it's worth a case request to investigate further. ] (]) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The simplest way to get arbcom to deal with this if needed is to establish a mainspace article creation ban . A subsequent violation of such a ban by an admin would be probably fall within their view of ADMINACCT. And if there are no subsequent violations the problem is solved. Sanctions are for prevention. If similar things happen with other editors, the ban is a good precedent. ''']''' (]) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? ] (]) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support stronger sanction''' - Ban on mainspace article creation per ]. If Carlos restricts themselves to their present work on categories this is harmless, but anything beyond this they simply cannot be trusted to do. For more than a decade they abused their position as admin to create vast number of articles that they must have known (because, as an admin, they are expected to know) failed WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. This was done with the apparent goal of simply boosting their article-creation stats to score higher on ] (i.e., ] behaviour). We all may make mistakes, but most of us don't simply keep on making them even after they've been pointed out to us. Most of us will try to fix our mistakes. Most of us won't simply be dismissive and refuse to help as it becomes apparent that we have created an immense problem for others to clean up. Admins are expected to be accountable per ] yet Carlos shirked any accountability for their GEOFAIL stub creation. Yes, it will be a novelty to have an Admin who isn't even trusted to create articles, but here we are. ] (]) 08:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @] can you explain? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. ] (]) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per ]. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . ''Many editors'' have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. ''In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system,'' but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. ] ] 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. ] (]) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building. | |||
| ::::::::*Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468. | |||
| ::::::::*Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468 | |||
| ::::::::*Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629 | |||
| ::::::::*Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022 | |||
| ::::::::] (]) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::To me, characterizing as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. ] (]) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. ] (]) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So you're aware, per {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Retiring#Pending_sanctions}}, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have ''claimed to have retired previously'', please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with ], especially as it related to ]. ] ] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. ] (]) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Consensus disagrees: ] ] (]) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. ] (]) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with ''you'', not the culture. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. ] (]) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Note that I said "experienced", not "older". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to ] to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. ] (]) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing ]. You might find it helpful. ] ] 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? ] (]) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They tried that stunt ]. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a <s>second</s> <s>third </s> n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? ] ] 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. ] ] 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. ] (]) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards. | |||
| :We can enforce guidelines about civility, ], but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged. | |||
| ::My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits. | |||
| ::Timeline of how this ended up here: | |||
| ::*Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people | |||
| ::*Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page. | |||
| ::*Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47. | |||
| ::*Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied. | |||
| ::I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". ] | |||
| ::An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022. | |||
| ::I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 | |||
| ::I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 ] ] | |||
| ::I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. ] (]) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard <u>not</u> to be {{tq|uncivil}}. | |||
| :::<small>But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person.</small> <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. ] (]) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. ] (]) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here ''or'' you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those {{tq|sanctions}} may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as ] as of now, can be enforced to {{tq|encourage a more productive, congenial editing style}}. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually ] and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware ]); <small>(struggles to think of a closing sentence)</small> farewell, Legend. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? ] (]) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding {{tq|there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behavior}} is almost always because ''nobody else'' sees how you're being treated as uncivil, even after you've presented your best evidence of such claims. TYour perceptions of other people is causing you undue stress that is of your own doing. However, if this is truly causing a {{tq|negative impact}} on you, I have to ask WHY are you still coming back here? If anyone feels stressed by contributing to a volunteer project, they should simply take a Wikibreak, and not just say it, but literally turn off all notifications, logout, and set some sort of calendar reminder for some point in the future before you even look at a Misplaced Pages page. This should be your happy place, not a stress inducer. ] ] 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I mean I agree people were being rude at BLPN and people on wiki are often needlessly antagonistic. The issue is that because that's the case, what would get someone fired in a professional environment is treated as not a big deal here. ] (]/]) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Legend of 14}} recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. ] (]) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal: ] block for Legend of 14=== | |||
| ===Another case, this time Turkey=== | |||
| Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Now at ]}} | |||
| *'''Support''' As proposer. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It has come to my attention that a large number of stub articles on Turkish placenames have been recently created (example at ]). They all seem to be taken from a single unverifable secondary source, and none of them have coordinates, though they do have population numbers. It's not the same editor (these were created by ]), but they present the same issues of review and potential cleanup. ] (]) 19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm pretty sure this belongs on ANI. Also, if you want people to notice your complaint, it would be best to start a new section. ] (]) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree, this seems to be a different story and is best discussed separately.--] (]) 20:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've been editing many of these articles and can verify that I haven't stumpled upon one that did not exist. Perhaps a better reference should have been used for population (like nufusune.com) but this is a separate issue. --] (]) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited ] content from ] I listened. ] (]) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, before people get their pitchforks ready, please DO NOT tar me with the same brush as the work done by Carlossuarez46. I started to work on the lists of populated places in X for Turkey a while back. ], and all the lists for places starting with A, had already been completed. So, with a bit of research into the existing articles, I started to set up new pages based on what I'd found. The source I've been using was already used in some of these articles. | |||
| *'''Support''' a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear ] situation. ] ] 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''If this is still going on support''' I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. ] (]) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's not. ] (]) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, {{U|Legend of 14}}, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. ] ] 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was simply pointing out the ''pre-redacted state'' if you happened to only read the current talk page, they removed over 8k bytes from their talk page, which further adds context and shows conflict skills. I agree that they sound "younger" especially by their approach and rejection to experience, but their actual age has little to do with their ability to contribute, however, emotional maturity is something that does weigh into the ability to manage conflict. ] ] 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' This is a huge overreaction. Can an involved admin please close this thread so everyone can get on with editing instead of fanning the flames of this inconsequential dispute? ] (]/]) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? == | |||
| :I don't add coordinates because I simply do not know where that data comes from, or how to add it correctly. However, The Anomebot2 has been adding coordinates to hundreds of these articles (I assume from their name, it's a bot...), and editor Deor has been adding maps too (]). | |||
| For example, ]. In theory I think this could be deleted via ] for violating ]. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day? | |||
| :From what I can tell, Carlossuarez46 created all the Iranian articles on here FIRST, and then they have been copied across other wikis afterwards, which seems to be the big problem based on the verifiability of the EN article. 99.99% of the Turkish articles I've created already exist on the Turkish WP, with the vast majority already existing on other wikis too (Kurdish, Armenian, German, etc). If you still think there's something wrong, or close to being a problem on the scale of Carlossuarez46's, then please get your evidence together, and log a new thread at ANI. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Anomebot2 adds {{tl|coord missing}} templates; Deor added the coordinates (which are already in Turkish Misplaced Pages). ] (]) 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Peter. Thinking back now, I did not add that template to the first batch I created, but have done ever since, and then Anomebot2 adds the coordinates (]). Thanks again! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem, {{u|Lugnuts}}, like I said in the ANI discussion about your cricket edits, is that you are mass creating these based solely on an unreliable site. Yes, the villages exist, so the problem is different than the CarlosSuarez one above: but once you are made aware that the source you use may be unreliable, you should doublecheck this, and preferably start using a different source, instead of simply continuing. You claim that ] has a 2012 population of 64: the Turkish article gives a population of 302 in 2007, and 406 in 2014. Which one is correct? ]; you claim population 154 (2012), Turkish Misplaced Pages claims 307 in 2007, and 398 in 2014. Without some good indication that this source is reliable, you shouldn't continue to create articles based on it, and preferably either resource the others ot move them to draftspace until you can. Creating hundreds (thousands?) of stubs based on one unreliable source really isn't acceptable. ] (]) 08:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure why you continue to target me and my work with your harassment Fram, but if you still think there's something wrong, or close to being a problem on the scale of Carlossuarez46's, then please get your evidence together, and log a new thread at ANI. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Hmm, actually this is an article about a ] member, not a ] member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I genuinely have no particular view on {{u|Lugnuts}}'s work. I will however note that Carlos is not the only editor at or near the top of ] who has engaged in problematic mass-creation of articles. What matters in terms of sanctions is how they responded to it - and particularly in Carlo's case the fact that they are an Admin and should be held to a higher standard. The person at the top of that leaderboard created stub articles en masse using an algorithm based on data from GEONET - an unreliable source - but they at least seem amenable to at least agreeing to a solution to that problem, and it may be that, after this AN has been dealt with, we can follow a standard path to clearing up these GEOFAIL articles. There is absolutely no need for drama in doing this. ] (]) 08:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * No, it doesn't. If it ''was'' (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles ''should'' be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. ] 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *:It might fall under ]. ] (]/]) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per ] ¶ A2, {{tqq|Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As long as the article is acceptable, this is what ] is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Given that they were specifically when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of ] at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. ] ] 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::In ''that'' case, it should probably be nuked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ] (]) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. ] (]) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Brinja People == | |||
| I want to set up a page for the Brinja People and to be able the add to it see | |||
| *'''Delete''' ASAP and don't look back. Re: "''does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine''" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. ] (]) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_indigenous_peoples#Australia <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{ping|Josu1}} Good morning, Josu1. Consider using ] to start your article. Ask the kind people at the ] if you have any questions. --] (]) 07:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| *'''Delete''' and block {{np|BasselHarfouch}} site-wide for continued violations. --] (]) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The final decision in the ] has been made and the case subsequently was closed. The final decision is viewable on the main case page. One remedy was passed as part of the final decision, which is included below: | |||
| == Archive bots == | |||
| *{{admin|RexxS|RexxS's}} administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. ] (]/]) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 23:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|TonyTheTiger}}. Maybe you are thinking of ]? –] <small>(])</small> 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. == | |||
| == Concerns about AIV and MDanielsBot == | |||
| {{atop|1=We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per ] (and, indeed, ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| As observed , Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated.<span id="Masem:1737504211892:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against.<span id="Masem:1737506377400:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::::If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. ] (]) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations}} Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. ] (]/]) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ] for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. ] ] 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Legal threat == | |||
| <small>(Originally posted to ] ({{oldid|Misplaced Pages:Bots/Noticeboard|1014393457}}); moving here per recommendations)</small> | |||
| Currently {{u|MDanielsBot}} clears the AIV board of reports anywhere from 4-8 hours old, as they are deemed stale. I certainly don't take filing reports there lightly, so I have become concerned when two reports I filed in the last month were cleared out without any apparent attention ({{noping|Ds Abhishek}}, ]; {{noping|Nawzad Shekhany}}, ]). In the former case, the user went on to post promotional content twice more before being blocked. | |||
| I realize this was probably ] because the board was being overloaded/abused with frivolous and/or illegitimate reports. My concern is that legit reports (particularly of spammers/self-promoters) are being wiped out without ever having been looked at. Is there no better way to manage the backlog? If an admin was able to tag the report with a template to say no action is required, no further explanation needed... or at least increase the time before the bot clears the report, to give more time to investigate... I'd at least have confidence that my reports are not being made in vain. Thanks. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 20:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :This should probably be discussed at a more relevant venue like ], or ], focusing mostly the question of what the bot should do, in an ideal world. After that's decided, {{U|Mdaniels5757}} could be contacted to implement / update the bot to follow the new desired logic.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :We can tag reports with no-action required, it's just a lot of admins don't (or AIV is understaffed, a reasonable statement in modern days). I agree that this is not really the place to discuss it however. ] (]) 21:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that MDaniels hasn't edited for two months, and his talk page says he is on a wiki break until December, so he may not be ready available to implement changes.] (]) 13:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the bot's operator is unavailable, I suggest the bot be blocked for the time being, and other methods be used to manage archiving. -- ] (]) 14:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::IMO, a bot should only be blocked if its operator is unavailable ''and'' the bot is causing problems that the operator is not fixing (which does not seem to be the case here, yet—only if we get consensus that there is something to be done and the operator doesn't address it). There is a real issue with critical bots being maintained by one user who could disappear at any time. Many of these bots continue running without any problems and blocking them for reasons other than stopping a disruptive bot is not productive. Also, the fact that an operator hasn't edited in a couple months does not mean they are unavailable. Has an effort been made to contact him? (I can see MDaniels is active off-wiki, for what it's worth.) — ] (]) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't understand why blocking the bot is even being discussed. That would stop the bot's other tasks, too. The bot should (in theory) obey ] if people really want to stop that one task. ] (]) 19:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * In my experience, the reports that MDanielsBot removes are almost always issues that aren't truly urgent, and at AIV we want to prioritize action on the more urgent reports (e.g. a vandal making dozens of edits in a short time frame) over the ones where the editor seems to have stopped vandalizing or spamming for the time being. The relevant policy is ]: {{tq|Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.}} If MDanielsBot removes your report, and you think that it still needs attention, then I would just add the report to ] again. ] (]) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: The problem is with those vandals who make one or two edits per day, for months on end. Blocking would clearly be ]. But unlike the "spree vandals", the matter is never exactly "urgent". ] (]) 19:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's fair, but I would claim that most reports of such accounts do get actioned successfully, and they only tend to slip through the cracks when AIV is backlogged, which is when we want to prioritize the more urgent requests anyway. ] (]) 20:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To be clear, I wasn't suggesting to disabling the bot; in fact I think it should run on ] also. Just pointing out that not all matters are "urgent". ] (]) 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Meh, the bots don't typically get super upset, and run to your talkpage / noticeboards when you decline reports from them. Often times, that's why admins will decline to action reports. ]] 01:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The reason the bot exists is because admins don't like declining reports at AIV because it can get you yelled at, and no one likes to get yelled at. If a report has been there for 4-8 hours, as {{u|Mz7}} says, it is definitionally not urgent and ongoing and doesn't meet the purpose of AIV. If you get a repeat spammer or someone who vandalizes once a month for 12 months straight, ] is a better place to file a report because it probably takes more than one sentence to explain.{{pb}}I'll also note that MDanielsBot isn't the first bot we've had that did this {{u|SQL}} ran {{noping|SQLBot}} for a significant time before, and this is a replacement for that. Anyway, this looks to me like the bot is working as intended. If there's an issue that requires explanation, even if it's relatively simple, ANI is the best place to go. My rule of thumb is that if an issue takes more than one sentence to explain why someone should be blocked and anyone can see, AIV is not the right place to report. ] (]) 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, ] will always be a thing on a volunteer project. ANI ''would'' be the right place for low-rate vandals, were it not for the (mostly but not entirely non-admin) peanut gallery who will go immediately hunting through the reporter's contributions, for an opportunity to shout "]! ]! ]!". Often based on a simple mistake, or some bizarre interpretation of policy. Maybe we need a page for "middle ground" reports. Oh, who am I kidding, it will just turn into another ANI. ] (]) 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == DLive Moderators have a heavy political corporate bias and agenda == | |||
| {{atop | {{atop | ||
| | result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = Apparently NONAZIS (or something) boomeranged (and TPA revoked) by ]. If you want you can just remove this thread entirely. ] (] / ]) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on ]. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. ] (]) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I really am just showing again that over 4 normal people wanted to prove that your description of Dlive is laughably biased, and ignorant conspiracies. | |||
| 4 people have been banned from editing in actual truth, while they keep painting the website as a ''white nationalist website'' when that is clearly not true at all. | |||
| We have corrected the new actual appearance of the gaming website it is now, and the editors clearly keep painting it as a conspiracy website. Go there yourself and see, this has been edited 4 times by a certain group of far-left agenda type 'wikipedia editors' (who actually do not actually prove what they are saying except random blogs by 1 random reporter nobody knows) | |||
| This is pathetic, and your website is now having active corporate entities with biased people, editing out truth to attack competition (dlive is clearly being attacked, i have no affiliation with it, just stating obvious facts as an independent voter) | |||
| Thank you, please help keep the website not far-left agenda, it is becoming a haven for editors on this site to be more far left than center. It is reported in many websites, so please realize it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == |
== Disruptive editor == | ||
| An uninvolved administrator would be welcome to look at the stalled discussion at ] and assess whether A) there is some consensus and B) whether any administrative actions are necessary (there's instances of edit-warring on some pages, for example). Cheers, ] (] / ]) 18:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :And now I must sadly start pointing out that despite warnings to the contrary, one editor has repeatedly ] and ], notably by accusing other editors of being and ... ] (] / ]) 18:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please avoid inappropriate judgments. The issue is not as clear-cut as you present it here. ] (]) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| It's a need to have someone answer the question of what the images on the Wikimmedia Common, flagicons images and Templates:Country datas are for, when the few users systematically remove flagicons (flags and other symbols such as coats of arms) in infoboxes of several articles at once and block their addition based on the assumption that they are "disruptive", anachronistic etc, after when I read MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, I concluded that there is no rule that recommended or commanded their remove. If these users are right and proceeding correctly, then there is no point to doing several activities such as editing Templates:Country datas or participate in some Wikimedia Commons projects (flags, coats of arms etc), because it isn't possible to use them. The various articles are then in two different styles, some with flagicons and others without, so Misplaced Pages seems to me to be inconsistent. The details and arguments for and against are here: ], which was later complicated such as by discussing about the appropriateness of using the one term. ] (]) 01:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Universal Code of Conduct open letter == | |||
| A majority of the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee has signed the ''']'''. This follows a months-long drafting process between the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee and the arbitration committees of other projects. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Universal Code of Conduct open letter}}'''<!-- ] (]) 19:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == What is correct venue for discussion of overturning a close of a talkpage thread? == | |||
| So, an editor SNOW closed a discussion thread. (I think it was technically not an admin action, but de facto probably is), and I wish to contest this. But where? I thought that ] might be best? (Closing something down isn't exactly the same as deleting it, but kind of, and after all the people there are skilled particularly at assessing closes). | |||
| But then maybe it should be here? Or ANI? Or what? (DRV thread is here: ]). ] (]) 20:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Generally here (WP:AN). But it looks like the discussion is again open, so I'd say let it go for now. ] (]) 01:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh OK thanks. Yea that deletion review is moot anyway. ] (]) 09:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == immediate BLP protection needed == | |||
| {{atop | {{atop | ||
| | result = ]. Level 2 warning issued. ] (]/]) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = Article semi-protected by {{noping|Hog Farm}} until April 3. -- '''] ]''' 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ] has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could someone please protect the BLP ] immediately? The vandalism is coming in every few seconds and it is impossible to revert to a clean version because of the continuous edit conflicts. ] (]) 21:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Protected by ] Thanks. ] (]) 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale == | |||
| == Mobile editors are not getting the edit notice == | |||
| Crouch, Swale was for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a ]. In ] they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In ], Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ] and after questioning on his talk page basically ] he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. {{u|ToBeFree}} correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, ] (]) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Compare: | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. There are too many missing dots here. {{U|Crouch, Swale}}'s editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as: | |||
| * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:EditPage/User:Alexis_Reggae/Example_for_mobile | |||
| ::one account restriction | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:EditPage/User:Alexis_Reggae/Example_for_mobile | |||
| ::topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions | |||
| ::prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace) | |||
| ::prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace). | |||
| :That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? ] (]) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment:''' I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022. | |||
| ::They then went to ] with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail). | |||
| ::Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient. | |||
| ::I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way. | |||
| :: Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. ] (]) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| On mobile the message {{tq|Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Any work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.}} is not displayed in the new style editor. If you press the X next to "'''Editing''' (title)", you switch to another editor that ''does'' show the notice. | |||
| * I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --] (]) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm reporting this here for now because I'm not sure if this can be fixed by an admin/interface admin (maybe the new editor uses a different message?), or maybe nobody is supposed to see the notice anymore, or maybe it's a bug that belongs on Phabricator, or maybe it's all by design so it's not a bug but a feature. | |||
| *:Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits. | |||
| *:@] Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support the site ban''' that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --] (]) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. ] (]) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. ] ] 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Discovered this because {{U|Sophivorus}} posted a comment on ]. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 01:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I edit in mobile web view most of the time and I prefer not seeing any editnotice, it'll allow the editing window to fully occupy my phone screen. I bet if any editnotices are shown it will irritate mobile editors eventually. ]|] 02:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's ''hard'' to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --] (]) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Enjoyer of World}} IMHO either the notice should be removed altogether regardless of device or everyone should see it. If anything, my personal impression is that mobile users need to be warned ''more'' than desktop users, not less. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:By "oppose", are you opposing the site ban or the regular block? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 20:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Alexis Jazz}}, warned for what? It's a very generic message about copyright and verifiability that everyone who've edited Misplaced Pages must have known by now. If anything, it should only be shown once and removed after. ]|] 04:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::The site-ban, of course. The regular block isn't even being reviewed here, I think - obviously if someone overtly threatens to do those sorts of things and doesn't back down they have to be blocked. --] (]) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...or have an option to "never show me this message again" kind of thing. ]|] 04:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: Oh, I think I misread the title of this section—I thought "assuming" was "assessing". ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Enjoyer of World}} Warned, informed, ]. My personal impression (I have no stats at hand to back up my claim) is that proportionally mobile users are responsible for more copyvios and vandalism. (which would make sense for a number of reasons anyway) — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 06:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Mobile editing is broken in several ways, see ] from ]. ] (]) 02:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. ] (]) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hopefully they fix it sometime. It is alarming the number of bugs that Suffusion of Yellow has been able to document. Thank you for creating that document, {{u|Suffusion of Yellow}}. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. ] covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is not above my pay grade to use common sense. But do what you think you need to do. ] (]) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This whole situation is just weird. I was reading ] for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. ] (]) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I was someone who came back to Misplaced Pages after being blocked for an extensive period of time. If I was in a situation where I didn’t want to edit anymore, requesting a site ban for myself would be the wrong way to do so. There are better ways to handle these things rather than this. Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with taking a break from Misplaced Pages if you feel it is getting in the way of your life. It can be stressful for editors to tell you things you don’t necessarily want to hear, but there are more important things in life than Misplaced Pages which are in the physical world. I’ve been one of those people. You can also request a self-block on yourself rather than doing every naughty thing you can do to get yourself blocked. Those blocks are harder to get yourself back into the community if you feel you need to. I’d rather do everything right on Misplaced Pages rather than do a bunch of wrong things. In a nutshell, that’s basically how I feel. ] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Meh''' They can't appeal on their talk page, and I can't imagine the small group of admins that does the heavy lifting at ] unblocking them. The only other avenue of appeal is the committee, which seems equally unlikely, so I'm not really seeing much risk here. ] ] 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I just hope they are okay. I think the site ban was completely justified, but something seems off here, and if they want to return, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the normal procedures. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == WMF research on admins == | |||
| Related discussion at ]. ] (]) 10:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| There's a 70 page final report over at ]. Apparently it will be part of something called the ] in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. ] ] 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] rename == | |||
| :Hello, ], I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at ]). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. ] ] 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. ] (]) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we lean older or younger? ] ] 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Admins average older than editors and readers. ] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. ] (]) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi @], hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also ] if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit. | |||
| ::On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I like this line {{tq|1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.}} That was my experience! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:], you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. ] (]) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins <small>(although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax ''formal'' requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements)</small>. However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). ] (]) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Move page ] == | |||
| Just a heads-up, but there is/was a discussion to potentially rename ] to ]. The discussion has run a week but I thought giving notice to AN would allow for more voices before it gets closed. ]. ] (]) 11:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Eyes requested on ]... == | |||
| :{{done}}. For future reference, if you're prevented from moving a page only for technical reasons, you can make a request at ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg == | |||
| ...The site of an ongoing edit war. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : I fully protected for a week and reverted to what I think is a pre-war version. No problem with correcting the version without asking me (and I will be off to bed in about half an hour anyway).--] (]) 20:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Can an admin take a look at ]? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a ] request based on the last post added by the uploader to ]. -- ] (]) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Wrong translation of "Российский" into English == | |||
| {{archive top|result=discussions moved to ] and ]}} | |||
| The word "Российский" is wrongly translated into English as "Russian". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{discussion moved to|Talk:Igor Krutoy}} | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft:Chrystal_Copland | |||
| :I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. ] (] | ]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Can someone please help me to edit this? | |||
| == Topic ban appeal from ] == | |||
| Thank you very much, | |||
| I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at ]. My reasons are as follows: | |||
| Kind Regards, <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| # The bans are both over a year old. | |||
| : Moved. ] (]) 03:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| # I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place. | |||
| {{discussion moved to|Draft talk:Chrystal Copland}} | |||
| # The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion. | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| # I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about. | |||
| For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. ] (]) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' Links to discussions . ] 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you ] (]) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak oppose''' pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. ] ] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I !voted in so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. ] ] 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Involved oppose'''. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after ], but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? , which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of ''before'' being sanctioned. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. ] (] | ]) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is ] at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced ] and ]. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. ] (]) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. ] (]) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', based on my just seeing this post, on the talk page of someone else who is thinking about a ban appeal: . My recollection is that Dronebogus supported that other editor's ban, so this wasn't a friendly joke intended to lighten the mood. That Dronebogus would do such a thing while ''this'' appeal is in progress says a lot, none of it good. --] (]) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Involved oppose''' as the editor who proposed the XfD tban. I don't see anything in the OP's request to justify lifting either ban. While the stigma of a tban may be inconvenient, Dronebogus should have taken this inconvenience into consideration before engaging in the behavior that earned these sanctions. ] (]) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Closure request for ITN RfC == | |||
| == False historial view on Agbaba page, the infiormation provided is incorrect and i have been blocked == | |||
| ] has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. ] (]) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| They have blocked me from making changes to Agbaba page, but they are giving false information about the orignines of the attire, it is a old hebrew attire, weather they like it or not. | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1so2dkrXw0&t=4s <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I'm increasing the block to an indef for ] after these edits: , , , . ] (]) 15:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| An arbitration case ] has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| == Five thousand images added by ] == | |||
| * All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. | |||
| {{usertcc|RogerNiceEyes}} is a brand-new user whose editing has been solely concerned with adding images to articles. Since he started actively editing in the beginning of March, he has accumulated some five thousand edits doing this, at a fairly high rate of speed that doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for double-checking. I have no doubt that he is editing in good faith, as many of the images are topically-related and many of the articles lacked images to begin with. Unfortunately, Roger's enthusiasm far outstrips his accuracy. Myself, {{u|Ymblanter}}, and {{u|Pjposullivan}} have all noted instances where Roger has accidentally added images that he seems to believe are related, but are on closer inspection, are ''not'' the topic of the article: | |||
| * AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| * {{dif|1014641333}}, not verifiably of the topic of the article | |||
| * Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator. | |||
| * {{dif|1014695629}}, the wrong car entirely | |||
| * Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at ] about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion. | |||
| * {{dif|1014860706}}, an M75 ''not'' an M74 | |||
| * ] and ] are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: {{tq|Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.}} | |||
| * {{dif|1014330121}}, the wrong church entirely | |||
| * Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. | |||
| * The community is encouraged to run a ] aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping. | |||
| There are other issues, noted on his talk page: his captions are non-existent or {{dif|1014862235|one-word}} at best, images are often crammed in {{dif|1014861174|randomly}}, and his edit summary is invariably solely the word "Added". The above examples are cherry-picked from the last two days, and from a limited sample of his edits on those days at that - I'm certain there are more, but his edits are so prolific it would be very difficult for one human to check them all. | |||
| * The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE. | |||
| * Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The ] page contains information that may help. | |||
| I messaged him yesterday about the accuracy and captions, but he carried on making more of the same edits and same errors today. I left him a second message begging him to take more care, and he appears to have stopped editing for today since then, but without a response, it's impossible to know for sure if he's seen it or it was just a coincidence. In fact, he has never responded to any talk page message that I can tell, and he doesn't have email enabled. Roger solely edits from the mobile app, so he may not even know he has talk page messages, thanks to the terrible app interface. | |||
| * Within this topic area, the '''balanced editing restriction''' is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE. {{cot|Details of the balanced editing restriction}} | |||
| :* In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. | |||
| :**This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly ], and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. | |||
| :**Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. | |||
| :* They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). | |||
| :* This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. | |||
| :* Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| * If a ] or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their ] to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators ] contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't particularly want to stop him from editing entirely - as I said, many of the images ''are'' useful. It's just that he's creating a great deal of cleanup work in his wake, and wasting other peoples' time (especially after being asked and warned) is unfair on a collaborative project. Ymblanter suggested that we implement a mass rollback on his edits rather than expecting people to manually review them. I'm bringing this here to get some input on what, if anything, should be done with this. ♠]♠ ] 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| * Yes, indeed, I fully support this. I first noticed the user a few days ago, when they added a few photographs which did not conform with the ] requirements (). Whereas I do not expect them to know anything about freedom of panorama, and I do not doubt they are acting in good faith, the fraction of errors is too large to let this go.--] (]) 16:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I have also been watching this work and dropping hints about how to do it better. My guess is that it is based on a list of articles which have images in other language equivalents, e.g. {{diff|Xanthomonadales|prev|1014863390|the most recent edit}} adds an image used in ]. It is potentially useful if done well, and some of it is done well, but I agree that the number of errors makes it of dubious benefit overall. ] (]) 16:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes, the sheer number of additions makes the accumulation of errors and the necessary response more drastic. Also, not to forget the fact that after thousands of edits, there has been neither improvement nor response from them. ] (]) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * We should perhaps count ourselves lucky. The other language Wikipedias just get "+" as an edit summary. I suggest reading ] at this point. ] (]) 17:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *So far we have evidence of 4 problematic images among thousands of edits. I would argue that finding an image to illustrate an article and adding it to the article is a positive, even if there's no caption, even if the edit summary could be better, and even if it's positioned awkwardly. Definitely '''oppose mass rollback''' of these additions without much more evidence. That said, obviously communication/collaboration is required here, so perhaps a short block will get this person's attention?<br/>As for the "how" question, it looks like his Wikidata edits have a , which makes me wonder if the reason for their focus and not seeing the talk page is because of an interface like that. Unfortunately, the tool isn't working so well for me at the moment so I can't test it (and don't remember from my last experience with it). — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:23, 24 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 | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion- Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
| 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) | |||||||||
| 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
| 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
| 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 | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 20 | 22 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 76 | 76 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
- 11 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 12 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 67 sockpuppet investigations
- 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 101 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 23 requested closures
- 34 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 22 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
NO CONSENSUS This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. Beeblebrox 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:
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)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.
- 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)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 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)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 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)
- 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 tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe 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)
- I think saying that
- 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 onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- 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)
- 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)- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. Beeblebrox 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
- 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)
- Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? 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 onmass-creating non-notable stubs
." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Lardlegwarmers block appeal
Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement from Lardlegwarmers
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
References
Statement from Tamzin
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.
Discussion among uninvolved editors
- This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as
Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups);which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
banblock to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after thebanblock expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
- Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock this specific response
Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue,my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say thata block for this stuff seems harsh.
TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to
all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic
, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments from involved editors
- Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that
apparently two wrongs make a right
, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f
**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ban appeal from Rathfelder
- Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
- Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
- Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB
Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist",
in wikivoicewith a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I’m not unmistaken User:Jytdog was banned by ArbCom, not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic unblockable actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here longer. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Pppeery-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. Martinp (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a de facto one. This is a feature, not a bug. Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Support per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit
Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2020 signups through Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that
here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup
, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting info
Steve Quinn is
trouted for bringing this to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
- File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
- File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
- File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
- File:AppalachianTN.jpg
- File:Acplate.jpg
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Please Help Me!
Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from Bhairava7 but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from 2 Factor Authication, so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through WP:ACC due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed to Bhairava7. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
- I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
BAG nomination
Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I need help from an admin - Urgent
I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help.
Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relevant article:
- An Orange from Jaffa (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- OP possibly using multiple accounts:
- Mohamugha1 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MohammedAlmughanni (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DMacks (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- MohammedAlmughanni blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian
fr.wiki is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. Lebronzejames999 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
EncycloDeterminate unblocked
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it is no longer necessary.
For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EncycloDeterminate unblocked
Permission request
| WP:LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
No. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for WP:AWB editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you CFA (AWB) (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Proposed community ban of Marginataen
COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED This clearly fall sunder theexcept in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hourscondition of WP:CBAN. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a long-term block on the wiki of their native language), and two days after their last unblock, they were blocked for a week for mass-changes to date formats without consensus, as discussed at ANI. Well they've gone back to more unwarranted mass-date format changes like this; their last hundred edits at the time of writing are a good sampler. Despite being explicitly told that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have continued to use topic similarity as a justification for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.
They clearly have extreme "I didn't hear that" problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which introduced Manual of Style violations of their own. Furthermore, in the light of this AN discussion (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their creation of the spin-off article Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. Graham87 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.) Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. Northern Moonlight 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 20 more edits after the AN notice. Northern Moonlight 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. Økonom (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Per proposal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Don't waste the community's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: Tamborg, Bubfernr, and LatteDK. There may be others that I have missed. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support.
I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently asked Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen responded: "Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates". And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to two more articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps going. Hopeless. Block. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Gotta play by the rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. Brandon (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a competence problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:TWC DC1
Warned, then sockblocked. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.G7 request by a blocked account
G7'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 20 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 take a look at this? It appears to be a "db-author" request for Draft:Francesca Martí. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Sapo.pt
Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Proxy question
I recently enabled the IP Info widget and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., (Redacted)). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at WP:OP. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Over on WP:OP we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO
- Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Undeletion + XML export request
Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of Drum set tuning, use Special:Export, and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per b:WB:UT. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19
Stray page deleted (non-admin closure) Mlkj (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps someone could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Done I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you The Bushranger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPN closures
2601AC47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deb Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2 sections Deb Matthews and Ministry of Education (Ontario)(MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions.
I have discussed with the user on User talk:2601AC47#Closures_on_WP:BLPN. The user refused to change the summaries. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So much for cooperation... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. Liz 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per WP:BIT. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . Many editors have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system, but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. TiggerJay (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building.
- Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468.
- Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468
- Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629
- Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022
- Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're aware, per Misplaced Pages:Retiring § Pending sanctions, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have claimed to have retired previously, please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with policies and guidelines, especially as it related to handling disputes. TiggerJay (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with you, not the culture. Tarlby 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing WP:1AM. You might find it helpful. TiggerJay (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a
secondthirdn-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- @Tamzin -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a
- They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
- We can enforce guidelines about civility, Legend of 14, but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. Liz 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.
- My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.
- Timeline of how this ended up here:
- Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
- Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
- Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
- Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.
- I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". User talk:2601AC47
- An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.
- I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605
- I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 User talk:Legend of 14#Preferred Pronouns User talk:Tiggerjay#January 2025
- I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be
uncivil
. - But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those
sanctions
may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as that policy states as of now, can be enforced toencourage a more productive, congenial editing style
. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually request an unblock and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware that we're serious about it); (struggles to think of a closing sentence) farewell, Legend. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) - But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those
- I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding
there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behavior
is almost always because nobody else sees how you're being treated as uncivil, even after you've presented your best evidence of such claims. TYour perceptions of other people is causing you undue stress that is of your own doing. However, if this is truly causing anegative impact
on you, I have to ask WHY are you still coming back here? If anyone feels stressed by contributing to a volunteer project, they should simply take a Wikibreak, and not just say it, but literally turn off all notifications, logout, and set some sort of calendar reminder for some point in the future before you even look at a Misplaced Pages page. This should be your happy place, not a stress inducer. TiggerJay (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean I agree people were being rude at BLPN and people on wiki are often needlessly antagonistic. The issue is that because that's the case, what would get someone fired in a professional environment is treated as not a big deal here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be
@Legend of 14: recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: WP:CIR block for Legend of 14
Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support As proposer. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited WP:BLP content from Ministry of Education (Ontario) I listened. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear WP:1AM situation. TiggerJay (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this is still going on support I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, Legend of 14, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ Lindsay 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ Lindsay 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was simply pointing out the pre-redacted state if you happened to only read the current talk page, they removed over 8k bytes from their talk page, which further adds context and shows conflict skills. I agree that they sound "younger" especially by their approach and rejection to experience, but their actual age has little to do with their ability to contribute, however, emotional maturity is something that does weigh into the ability to manage conflict. TiggerJay (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ Lindsay 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a huge overreaction. Can an involved admin please close this thread so everyone can get on with editing instead of fanning the flames of this inconsequential dispute? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays?
For example, Hussein al-Khalil. In theory I think this could be deleted via WP:G5 for violating WP:ARBECR. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?
Hmm, actually this is an article about a Hezbollah member, not a Hamas member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. If it was (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles should be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, it should probably be nuked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete ASAP and don't look back. Re: "does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete and block BasselHarfouch site-wide for continued violations. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Archive bots
This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger. Maybe you are thinking of meta:InternetArchiveBot#Using the bot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality.
We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per WP:NOTFORUM (and, indeed, WP:BEANS). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As observed here, Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated. — Masem (t) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? Silverseren 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against. — Masem (t) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations
Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ideas for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Legal threat
Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on User talk:Jack at BTCGPU. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive editor
WP:BOOMERANG. Level 2 warning issued. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:The Green Star Collector has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. FactsheetPete (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale
Crouch, Swale was blocked for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a site ban. In 2017 they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In December, Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ArbCom and after questioning on his talk page basically said he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. ToBeFree correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are too many missing dots here. Crouch, Swale's editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
- one account restriction
- topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
- prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
- prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
- That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
- They then went to appeal with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
- Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
- I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.
- Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.
- @Blue-Sonnet Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support the site ban that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. Sandstein 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. Star Mississippi 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. CaptainEek ⚓ 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's hard to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The site-ban, of course. The regular block isn't even being reviewed here, I think - obviously if someone overtly threatens to do those sorts of things and doesn't back down they have to be blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. WP:EMERGENCY covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not above my pay grade to use common sense. But do what you think you need to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. WP:EMERGENCY covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This whole situation is just weird. I was reading WP:AE for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was someone who came back to Misplaced Pages after being blocked for an extensive period of time. If I was in a situation where I didn’t want to edit anymore, requesting a site ban for myself would be the wrong way to do so. There are better ways to handle these things rather than this. Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with taking a break from Misplaced Pages if you feel it is getting in the way of your life. It can be stressful for editors to tell you things you don’t necessarily want to hear, but there are more important things in life than Misplaced Pages which are in the physical world. I’ve been one of those people. You can also request a self-block on yourself rather than doing every naughty thing you can do to get yourself blocked. Those blocks are harder to get yourself back into the community if you feel you need to. I’d rather do everything right on Misplaced Pages rather than do a bunch of wrong things. In a nutshell, that’s basically how I feel. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Meh They can't appeal on their talk page, and I can't imagine the small group of admins that does the heavy lifting at UTRS unblocking them. The only other avenue of appeal is the committee, which seems equally unlikely, so I'm not really seeing much risk here. Beeblebrox 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I just hope they are okay. I think the site ban was completely justified, but something seems off here, and if they want to return, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the normal procedures. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
WMF research on admins
There's a 70 page final report over at c:File:(Final Report) Administrator recruitment, retention, & attrition (SDS1.2.2).pdf. Apparently it will be part of something called the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Misplaced Pages Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Liz, hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also available on Meta-Wiki if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.
- On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! CLo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like this line
1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.
That was my experience! Liz 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)- Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- Ponyo 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Move page Lien Khuong Airport
Please help me move page Lien Khuong Airport to Lien Khuong International Airport (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was changed name (and upgraded) to an international airport since June 2024. Pk.over (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. For future reference, if you're prevented from moving a page only for technical reasons, you can make a request at WP:RMTR. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg
Can an admin take a look at File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a WP:G7 request based on the last post added by the uploader to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2025 January 22#File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal from User:Dronebogus
I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. My reasons are as follows:
- The bans are both over a year old.
- I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
- The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
- I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.
For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note Links to discussions . Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. Sandstein 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. Star Mississippi 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I !voted in this discussion so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. Star Mississippi 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved oppose. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after an RfC unanimously went against them, but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? Removing comments critical of them in discussions, which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of before being sanctioned. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is an open thread at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced here and here. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- Ponyo 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, based on my just seeing this post, on the talk page of someone else who is thinking about a ban appeal: . My recollection is that Dronebogus supported that other editor's ban, so this wasn't a friendly joke intended to lighten the mood. That Dronebogus would do such a thing while this appeal is in progress says a lot, none of it good. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved oppose as the editor who proposed the XfD tban. I don't see anything in the OP's request to justify lifting either ban. While the stigma of a tban may be inconvenient, Dronebogus should have taken this inconvenience into consideration before engaging in the behavior that earned these sanctions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Closure request for ITN RfC
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
An arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
- AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
- Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion.
- WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each:
Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
- Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
- The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
- The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
- Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
- Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
| Details of the balanced editing restriction |
|---|
|
- If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed