Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:53, 25 January 2007 view sourceDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:49, 11 January 2025 view source Buffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,474 edits →ftools is back!: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|counter = 368
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--


----------------------------------------------------------
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}<!-- This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
{{User:HighInBCBot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
==IRC admin channel==


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Misplaced Pages. ] for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
:Good call. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Not enough. The worst offenders are themselves chanops, as demonstrated by logs submitted to the ArbCom. IMO, their removal from the channel is the very least the ArbCom needs to do for the abused community and mistreated individuals. (The fact that the chanops in question are not actually admins should make the removal all the simpler.) What I see in Fred's message, however is '''not even a proposal to remove their chanop privileges.''' Are you serious? ] | ] 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
:::Indeed. Without some community involvement regarding who the IRC chanops are, this is unlikely to make much difference. I'm not sure who the worked-with "leaders" in Fred's message are; is it a secret? &mdash;] (]) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


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 ].}}
:I didn't even know there was a proposal to speak of, where is this being discussed? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 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.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
I'm afraid, when arbcom have constantly declined to address rank and obvious incivility on-wiki, they forfeit all credibility in any attempt to extend themselves into IRC. Send out out strong signals that incivility stops on-wiki and perhaps that will filter through to IRC. Until then.....showing teeth isn't going to convince.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
:That's no different to the claim "we have article X which is clearly rubbish, so we cannot delete article Y" often raised by n00bs at AfD. If the Arbcom feel that these relatively simple steps will reduce incivility in IRC, then they should go ahead, not stop because they haven't solved everything on-wiki first. ] ] 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
::Nonsense. If arbcom have shown a total and continued failure to deal with incivility on-wiki, threatening to come down hard on off-wiki incivility just isn't credible.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::how often have they been presented with on-wiki incivility to deal with it, though? Considering the issues that the channel has apparently given in past/current cases, it seems like they're simply doing what's asked of them. --] <small>]</small> 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is the issue actually being raised here, in full public view, and not in private with the parties concerned though ? There's already enough disruption on-wiki concerning IRC channels (and this channel in particular) and as nobody outwith the sysop pool (and a few selected others, I'm led to believe) can see what goes on in that channel, posting about it here is perhaps a little overly transparent. I heartily support any promotion of civility however. <span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#FF0000">--Kind Regards - ] <sup>] ]</sup></span> 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
:I assume Fred brought it up here to notify us of a change of policy. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
All this will start is anoth shit-storm (sigh)--]<sup>g</sup> 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
Maybe we should work to fix incivility on-wiki too. These proposed remedies are more strict than how misconduct has been handled on-wiki as of late. --] 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
* This is becoming a joke. Judging from the title of the heading alone shows that we are no different from ]. - ] 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I find a regulation of off-wiki activities by a panel with jurisdiction ONLY over this wiki somewhat disturbing. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:They aren't claiming jurisdiction, note Fred says they have been working with the IRC leadership. They are simply stating that IRC activity may be considered in on-wiki cases if it is relevant. ] ] 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry but why is this being discussed ''now''? Efforts have been made in the past few weeks to put a stop to whatever negative activities are occuring in the channel. Frankly, I think most of us support the shutdown of the channel entirely, rather than creating more mess with the same parties, which is what's happening right now. —<b><font color="#00FFFF">]</font>] (])</b> 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe it is time to shut it down. ] 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
::Whether it is shut down or not, the behavior we are trying to stop can easily continue through other means if people really want to do things subtly, but nonetheless I think that shutting the channel down is a poor move. The channel has its uses for immediate issues and things that require administrator intervention. Rooting out the behavior that would not be suitable even on-wiki is definitely a positive step in making the channel more useful so that there is less cause for disruption in the future, though. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Possibly, but discussing administrator intervention issues there is what started all this in the first place. Sensitive foundation/WP:BIO stuff can find a new home, sometimes it's easier to shut something down and start over then trying to fix ongoing systemic problems. But maybe all it needs is an influx of new users/admins with these conversations in mind. ] 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Can someone point me to the discussion that everyone seems to have read, because I am lost here, what is everyone so pissed off about? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::In this case, ignorance is bliss. Just slowly step away and never look back. --] 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::IRC comes up from time to time...buried in ] and ] archives. Some admins are firm believers in it, some editors (mostly non-admins) are vocal against it, and others such as myself qualify to join but decline to do so. The civility aspect dovetails with another recent hot button topic not necessarily confined to IRC. On January 5 I set off a firestorm (quite inadvertently) after I left a civility warning on another admin's talk page. If I'd anticipated how heated some reactions would be I would have handled the situation with greater circumspection, yet the admin I warned wasn't offended and two other editors awarded me barnstars. It sprouted some threads in my most recent user talk archive and the top of my current page if you're curious. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*This is not sufficient, in my view. Lest I be counted merely among the "burn it down" camp, let me delineate:
:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*#''Additional'' ops would be enough if there were a suggestion that there were too few. In fact, in this case, the ones with "ops" have been implicated several times in the incivility.
:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*#''Additional'' ops are also not going to answer the glaring problem that ''at least'' two people with "ops" are not administrators on en.wikipedia. One of these was implicated in using that IRC channel inappropriately in September of 2006 and then again in December 2006. This is not a one time problem but a serial problem with two or three people.
::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*#The channel still has no justification, as it is populated by non-administrators as well as being a place only a small fraction of en. administrators ever go.
:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*#The channel will not be ''capable'' of behaving properly unless the people with control of it understand what it is that they have done that is not proper. So far as I have seen or heard, they still are in the dark about how calling for someone to be "killed, slowly" is bad, and there is no hope at all for them to understand how "let's start a pool on when X will be banned" is improper.
::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
*#The central problem remains undefined. If no one knows what "civility" means, then we're going to have more boots and blocks for someone using a wordy dird while detailed character assassination is cheered on. There is no actual guideline yet for the ops or users to employ for determining when they're acting improperly. In fact, one of the most hostile and reductive and bullying editors I've encountered is up above crying about on-wiki "civility" not being enforced. Obviously, what he means and what Fred means, and what I mean, are different things. He seems to hyperventilate about calling a he a she or a jerk an ass, while I care about trying to get people blocked so that their voices are no longer heard.
::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*I do think the whole thing should be disbanded, as I cannot see any room for it to ''help'' Misplaced Pages and built in ways for it to damage Misplaced Pages, but that would be merely philosophical if it weren't for the fact that ArbCom cannot act here and now because the people "in charge" are the people in the dock. They do not admit wrong, cannot conceive that they could be wrong, and will therefore not do anything differently, especially in the long term. If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. Incidentally, that is the charge trolls make all the time, and it's disgusting that we would make them right. ] 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Geogre, I think it's apparent that there ''isn't'' a definition of civility that everyone agrees on. Your comment above, "a he a she or a jerk an ass," illustrates the problem nicely. You didn't think anything of it, and still don't, but several people regarded it as one of the meanest, nastiest things ever said by one user about another, ''and the fact that you don't agree does not for one moment diminish the effect that it had.'' ] ] 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*And, on the other hand, many people see absolutely nothing wrong with spending hours talking about users who aren't present and talking about how they're all "idiots" and how they should be banned. They see nothing wrong with it still. So, if we were to balance out the two, where would we be: one person saying, of another who says frequently that she is pleased to be able to identify either way, one particular thing about gendered speech, versus three sitting about every night with an enemies list and coordinating provocations, blocks, and actions to generate a ban? You're right, Mackensen, I don't see that there is any comparison at all. One is ''being disagreeable'' and the other is ''trying to interrupt Misplaced Pages.'' One is where all sides may defend themselves (or take revenge, which seems to be the preferred reaction), and the other is where only like-voices can be heard as revenge. That you could be such a blushing violet and see these as anything like the same is strange to me, you are correct. ] 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Geogre, you seem to be taking the same line that Giano is: incivility on the encyclopedia is justified by perceived off-wiki conspiracies. Let's say you're right, just for the sake of the argument: Kelly Martin and other persons are conspiring to drive you and Giano off the encyclopedia. How does that, in any way, justify you making the aforementioned statement? An eye for an eye, Geogre? If I allege an off-wiki conspiracy against me by User X, on flimsy evidence, may I start trash-talking them in public? ] ] 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*No, Mackensen, I'm trying to illustrate to you the difference between being unpleasant (me) and disliking someone (as I do) and character assassination with the intent of blocking. I am justified in calling you a worm, if I want. That's my opinion, to which I am entitled. I would probably ''hope'' that you would be affronted, but I would have no expectation that you'd ''block'' for that, as '''no policy''' says that anyone may be blocked for expressing an unpleasant opinion. On the other hand, if I spend hours with only my friends in Misplaced Pages Divine Actions IRC, and we talk non-stop about how horrible Mackensen is, how he lies all the time, how he spends all his time complaining, how he's corrupt, how he's a hypocrit, etc., and then, when new people come in, that's all they see. If they protest, we all take turns telling that person that she should not be at our channel, because she may get blocked. Now, suppose, Mackensen, that you actually saw a log of that. How would you feel if I got sanctimonious about it? How would you feel if I threatened to block you (or did it) for telling anyone about the log? As for me, let them conspire. They've been doing it, and they'll do it still. I'm a big boy and am not threatened by pufferfish. The issue is much more concrete, much more precise. We are all free to be unpleasant, disagreeable, cantankerous, and ill humored, but we are '''not free to conspire to block''' other users. Or, in simpler words: we have to obey policy, not our inner rage. ] 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**Well, call me a worm if you like. That's not very collegial but I suppose if it floats your boat I won't argue. I wouldn't block you either, but I might start bringing up next time you ran for arbcom. I don't like civility blocks, and I'm on the record stating this numerous times, so let's move on. For all I know there are IRC channels where my name is mud; certainly there are talk pages on this encyclopedia that fit said description. I can't say that those bother me either. People of sound judgment can tell the difference between intelligent criticism and prattle, and I know whose opinion I value. Now, as it happens, I've been in a position where private evidence of someone bad-mouthing me was presented to me. I didn't do anything about it because frankly I didn't give a good damn. You're quite right that we have to obey policy. Last I looked ] was a policy, although not one with much weight any more. You talk about character assassination: why don't you look down below, where Giano is making slanderous remarks. You wanted to be an arbitator: is this your idea of handling a dispute? ] ] 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
::I don't believe in ignorance is bliss, that has always seemed like a myth to me. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The arbcom has discussed this at great length. Clearly there is a problem. However, with an issue this complex, involving this many actors, there is no solution that will please everyone. On one extreme is people who advocate shutting the channel down, and on the other is people who advocate doing nothing. I think the solution Fred mentioned - working with the structures currently in place to enforce civility in the channel - is a fair compromise. ] 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:What structures? Is there any clear methodology for who and who isn't a chanop there? Who are the "leaders" Fred Bauder mentioned? It's a wild-west free-for-all where the most entrenched clique wins in there. &mdash;] (]) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Beg pardon, but how can you confess ignorance at the leadership structure and then characterize it? ] ] 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:Admin IRC? Is that the place where admins rubs their hands saying ''mwhahaha''? -- ] 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::You joke, but I'm left with the impression that some people think just that. That's what happens when you cherry-pick from a log file. Sure, you'll find something objectionable, but extrapolating from that and coming up with the idea that the whole channel is rotten to the core is just bad propaganda. One should never build law on outlier cases or personalities, but we seem to be headed that way. ] ] 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Let me point out, specifically, that I acknowledge the existence of specific abuses in the above comment. ] ] 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've never set foot ... err ... keyboard ... in the admin IRC channel. Is it any different from the regular one? On there, people ask for help. They bounce ideas off of each other. They talk about non-wiki things. They point out funny/silly/ludicrous things they've found while editing. Sometimes there's profanity or other rudeness. It's pretty much like life in general. Is the admin channel any different? --] 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Not really, except that the people in there discuss administrative actions too. The controversial nature of any admin action is squared if "IRC" is breathed, since it implies a conspiracy. ] ] 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::On the whole, the incidents which have prompted this constitute well under 1% of all traffic. Unfortunately, they also represent between 50%-100% of some users total experience with either this channel, or IRC in general. This is a problem, but I think it's a problem in search of a targeted solution. ] ] 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict, replying to Mackensen at 04:00) Thankfully, my knowledge about IRC is limited to ''/connect'', ''/join'', ''/alias'' and ''/quit'', so I am pretty neutral here. Hmm... I once tried to download some movie through a channel, but it said something about being at position 5,000 in a queue, and after half an hour I was 7,000, so I turned the computer off and bought the DVD.
:::I know IRC is necessary to discuss in real time, but undoubtedly, it creates a separation between administrators, just like ]. There are those that can/want to connect through IRC, and those that can't/won't. It is inevitable. Even I feel that difference when someone reports a user at AIV stating "sockpuppet of blocked XXX", and when reviewing XXX's block, I find a "blocked per IRC talk" or similar. However, I must assume good faith, especially without logs. Others just can't (because of personal experience or anything), and raise in arms. It is a real pity that we do not have a ] where to check the public conversations in the channels, available only for admins, that would make things much clearer for everyone. -- ] 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::There's the rub: you don't why an administrator is acting ''period'', regardless of what discussion took place. Even when an administrator cites a specific policy, it still came down to the functioning of various processes in his or her head. There's a thousand IRC channels out there, and most of them prohibit logging. It only comes up with #wikipedia-en-admins because a) some things said there really aren't for public consumption because there are privacy issues, and b) the relative size makes it possible to enforce the rule. ] ] 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Of course! However, if an off-wiki action (as in, a IRC chat) brings a on-wiki reaction (in example, blocking a user), I think it would be just to include at least some information about that, just like you would point to the AFD when deleting an article, or the external link when deleting a copyvio. Ok, so full logging is not a solution, but at least consider some way of IRC board where to post the juicy parts (as in, the statements that were used to build consensus about something). We can quote an AFD, a URL or a report, we can even quote a mail to the mailing list, but we can't quote an IRC conversation? As I said, I assume good faith even though a vandal has broken two test4 warnings. However, others are less patient, and you need to comprehend them. I would even say that everyone's priority is to open the process as much as possible. -- ] 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, as I've said before, I see no reason to invoke IRC ''at all''; every administrator is responsible for what they do. Heck, every editor is responsible for every edit they make. Whether it was discussed on IRC or not is frankly beside the point. Anyone should be able to give a rational accounting of their actions. The problem is that the mention of IRC often leads to an assumption of bad faith--not always, but it happens. ] ] 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It is not that different from, in example, asking to review a block here, is it? I mean, some users may bring a review here (like ]), others may feel more comfortable with reviewing there. You are right, if you do something, you take responsibility. But if they can't and use some IRC chat as justification, that chat should be made public.
:::::::No need to reply, though, we will keep going in circles like the ] avatar :-) -- ] 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Much of this seems a bit moot. Even if the admin channel was shut down, it is technically impossible to prevent private communication between any group that decides to communicate privately. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The admin channel also serves as a place a lot of newer admins with questions go to get their questions answered. They hang out there, and see how abusive behavior is tolerated and encouraged. In short order they may come to believe such behavior is the correct and expected behavior for administrators. &mdash;] (]) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Good point grapes, I went there when I was new at the mop for advice and it was very helpful. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yep. It's a good use for IRC. We don't need an #admins channel for it; were there very many highly-sensitive issues you were asking about, that couldn't have been as easily asked and answered in #wikipedia-en? &mdash;] (]) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, you go where the people are. If you have a specific question about administration, you go where the administrators are. I find #wikipedia a bewildering place; I never got the impression that #wikipedia-en was highly patronized. ] ] 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
:Nothing is wrong with private communication, some questions need to be asked in front of experienced users, instead of everyone. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::Yes, but no reason to not ask a few well regarded administrators privately via email for the same advice or direction. Rarely, is something so immediate that it can't be resolved via email.--] 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
=== In camera (aka arbitrary section break) ===
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It's been asked a few times, but I'll ask again: What discussion with whom? Would it not make more sense to have the whole thing conducted "in public" as it were? The easiest questions to answer are:
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Who are the "leadership of the IRC channels," and
:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Who has been "appoint additional channel ops?"
::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
<font color="black">]</font> 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*The channels are under the control of James Forrester. The leadership is best described as James and Essjay, with help from others. The chanops on ''this channel in question'' include the following: FloNight, DavidGerard, Sannse, Fennec, Danny, Mackensen, Morven, Mark Ryan, Jimbo, Essjay, Angela, JamesF, Kelly Martin, Uninvited Company, Mindspillage and Dmcdevit. ] ] 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Good questions. Please, don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about, I only have a vague sense of what is going on here. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:: Since I'm a bit thick I like it when things are spleed write out: ''this channel in question'' is the admin channel? JF is "in charge" of #wikipedia and #whateveritis-admins, and that list are the chanops for #admins? And "include the following" is hazy to me. Sorry to be pedantic, but can we have a complete list of
::* Existing/previous chanops for vanilla wikipedia channel,
::* Existing/previous chanops for admin channel, and
::* Whomever are the "additional" chanops and what channels they are assigned on?
::The more I read that response the less feeling of security I get... "with help from others" leaves a lot to be desired as well. Was this discussion conducted via mailing list, IRC, something else, and is it written on water or is there something that Morlocks like me can refer to?<br/><font color="black">]</font> 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*First of all, #wikipedia-en-admins is the only channel under consideration here. Latent abuses in other channels remain unexplored pending someone of importance getting wronged in one of them (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious about that). New chanops for #wikipedia-en-admins are: FloNight, David Gerard, Mackensen, Morven, Uninvited Company and Dmcdevit (thereabouts, anyway). JamesF, as I understand it, is controller of at least all English-language channels because of chaos at freenode following ]'s death. There're numerous chanops on #wikipedia, too many to list here. The information is publicly accessible if anyone wants it. This was discussion on the mailing list of the Arbitration Committee, which happens to include the people responsible for the IRC channels. A happy coincidence proving that no good deed goes unpunished. ] ] 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::* Thank you. I appreciate you having patience while I catch up. No, ''I'm ''not being sarcastic. ^_^ <br/><font color="black">]</font> 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Mackensen, a minor point about your list of 16 #en-admins chanops above. You say that the list "includes" these people; does that mean it's incomplete? I ask because a couple of weeks ago I was kickbanned from the channel by somebody who's not on the list. I won't inflame matters here by naming him, but you certainly know who I mean. Was he an op? Or temporarily opped in order to kick me? Is he an op today? I'm over it, but the action was random and remains unexplained, so I think the answers are of some general interest. ] | ] 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
:::::*I omitted all level 10s in the interest of brevity. It was also late and I knew I'd miss somebody. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Bishonen, that was awhile ago now. I think it's best to just get over it and stop constantly bringing it up. IRC channel actions really don't mean a lot. --] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::In the interest of full disclosure, I have placed a copy of the access list, obtained via ChanServ, in my userspace (]) so as not to clutter up AN. I have removed all those under accesslevel 10, which to my recollection is the level of CMDOP in the channel. If anyone objects to this list (although it is freely available in IRC), then I will remove it. The names there are registered nicknames, and may or may not correspond with Misplaced Pages usernames. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


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


Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:The "Chatting vs. Encyclopedia-writing" argument is moot on IRC. IRC ''is'' for discussion of all types, and WMF has nothing to do with Freenode. Those who use IRC are not using Misplaced Pages as a chat forum, they're using ] as a chat forum, whose initials, by the way, stand for "Internet Relay Chat". —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, but the chatting has led to blockings and has led to reverting blocks made by established admins and has led to formulating abuses that have taken place on wiki on established editors. I am well aware of what IRC stands for...I never use it however and won't.--] 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm sure it has. But it's very easy to pick out singular events that happen every so often, paint all of IRC with the same brush, and in so doing lose sight of what actually happens the majority of the time, which is positive discussion. I know that I personally have been talked down from blocks that I was ready to make when I asked for second opinions, I know that discussions take place that are very positive. I know that sometimes it's okay for someone who has been blocked to be able to get on IRC, get a one-on-one chat with an admin, and explain their side of the story that often doesn't come out on-wiki. The {{tl|unblock}} template is great but sometimes it isn't very conducive to an in-depth review of a block. If an unblock happens based on that discussion, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the unblocking admin to monitor their contributions to ensure that they were not being disingenuous on IRC. Admins make mistakes, and discussions about what we do or about Misplaced Pages process or about the general goings-on can almost never be bad, in my humble opinion. I guess I just don't see the basis for the "OMG EVIL!" attitudes that some people (not you, MONGO) harbor towards IRC. Do people sometimes get into heated discussions? Sure, I got into one last night. Do sometimes administrators make bad judgments? Of course, that's true with or without IRC. I just think that people are looking at a very tiny subset of what goes on and are ignoring what goes on 99% of the time, which is very positive for Misplaced Pages. Anyway, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, etc. etc. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Of course...the point is, I see that IRC allows less transparency than we should have. I don't have time to bother with IRC and am simply encouraging all admins and ArbCom members to do all they can to discuss matters on wiki and use IRC for non-harassing chat.--] 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* My experiance with the plain olde #wikipedia channel is almost universally positive: People collaberating on articles, rational discussions of policy interpretation, etc. When the atmosphere turns poisonious there are enough people around to either tell the person to can it or for the offender to get the boot. (Once it was me, and I deserved it.) #admins I ] in all the time, and the ratio is reversed: There are too many like-minded people there, and the toxicity gets multiplied. I have never, not even on one occasion, seen anything discussed there that would not have gotten a better airing on the main channel. More ops isn't going to solve this, when the list supplied above has listed ''as'' ops several of those often painted as "unrepentantly uncivil." - <font color="black">]</font> 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*You really need to try the channels again. #wikipedia is pretty much universally acknowledged as a cesspit. #admins at least has well-reasoned discussion, although it's going downhill a bit what with the recent influx of teen admins who don't seem to realize that it isn't for extended off-topic chatter. --] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*The one thing I have never understood about the admin channel is that it appeared to me, on my infrequent visits, that people weren't using their Misplaced Pages username as their nickname. I guess I'm probably a little dense, but I never understood why. ] <small>]</small> 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
**How many people have access to the channel who are not admins? How many are former admins who resigned their sysop status, or were forcibly de-sysopped? Because not one of those should have access to the channel, yet they do. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*** I've yet to hear why an admin who voluntarily relinquished adminship is no longer trustworthy. ] ] 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**** Not to kick salt in someone's eyes when they are down, but if the ArbCom has said that you _must_ re-apply for adminship if you want it back there is clearly a grey area with regards to trust. - <font color="black">]</font> 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*****Plus at least some of those who voluntarily relinquished adminship jumped before they were pushed, so to speak. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*Fred Bauder says "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops" Fred gives sufficient reasons for closing down the channel but then shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem by failing to say that some of the existing channel ops are not only the worst offenders but at least one is a member of the arbcom. He then goes on to say "we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels " again the self proclaimed owner of the channel; is not only a member of the arbcom, but yes, you've guessed it - one of the worst offenders. Well done Fred we yet again see that this arbcom is beyond redemption. However, I am glad that after so long of being told by Misplaced Pages's hierarchy that I am imagining these things, they do now seem to be completely unacceptable gross incivility even though the IRC logs show them to be far more serious. Bullying and intimidation are just two words which immediately spring to mind. It should also be remembered that the deplorable events which have been permitted on IRC (certainly in my own experience) are 100% to blame for any incivility which has happened on-wiki. However I must be careful what I say or Fred, Jim and Dm will be RFArbing me again for even thinking such things. ] 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
**You're still responsible for your actions on-wiki. ] ] 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*Well of course that is true, and entirely why IRCadmins has been such a successful harassing operation, goad and plot against editors in secret, and then ban than when they respond it public. Thank you Mackensen for pointing that out so clearly. ] 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::*You're free to allege that; I've seen the evidence and it looks more like a comedy of errors than some deep rooted plot. How do you justify your incivility towards editors who do not use IRC, or who do use IRC but have never been a party towards comedy or malevolence? Feel free to ignore my earlier statements denouncing incivility towards other in IRC. It's also worth mentioning that as an ex-arbitrator I had a hand in drafting Fred's statement and fully endorsed it. There are no free passes here. ] ] 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*Of course it's fair to add more channel ops to combat incivility and personal attacks, but if some of the older channel ops are in fact party to making those attacks, it makes a lot of sense to replace them with friendlier ops. Otherwise, this will just turn into a rehash of "both parties are incivil but we're going to point at one of them and ignore the other's behavior". ] 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
**Sorry, but this would seem to be wikidrama for the sake of it. Is there a point to this wikidrama? Is there a point to the admins channel? If something needs sorting out, AN and ANI exist for a reason. If something needs sorting out privately or you want a private opinion, as MONGO pointed out email should be perfectly adequate. If you are worried about privacy, IRC will hardly assuage your worries, as there would seem to be log leaks left, right, and centre. Does and has the admins channel caused harm, problems, and unnecessary wikidrama? That does not seem to be in dispute. The obvious solution is to nuke the admins channel and every other Misplaced Pages IRC channel with the exceptions of #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, where on occasion I have had some enjoyable conversations that have benefited the encyclopedia. That will certainly put a stop to the wikidrama. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
***Mackensen, some of your arbcom colleagues have had a fee pass for far too long. I concur with Moreschi, any new channel ops will still be under the old disgraceful management? The arbcom's credibility can only be restored if this channel is abolished and its self proclaimed owner de-sysoped for bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute along with the other admins involved. It must be remembered that leading members of the arbcom have known and approved of this deplorable situation for years. Now it is in the open heads have to roll for Misplaced Pages's reputation to be restored. ] 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
****Then by all means bring an arbitration case, or appeal to Jimbo directly. I certainly don't consider myself JamesF's "agent," I can think for myself and act independently, for better or worse. ] ] 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:First, Mackensen is arguing pretty vociferously, and he's one of the ops for the channel, so I'm not sure he's uninvolved. There are so many bad arguments being made that it's hard to know where to start.
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:#First, is there "cherry picking logs?" What is the difference between "cherry picking logs" and "citing evidence?" Of '''course''' you're going to "cherry pick" because you're going to cite the dang evidence. The :15 when no one is there is not going to be cited. Sheesh. That's a Karl Rove like argument. The point is that the abuse is taking place by the same few people, who are chanops, on several occasions and ''arguably'' regularly. The evidence is clear enough for "several occasions," and "regularly" is what's in dispute.
*'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:#That it's the same few people no one seems inclined to discuss. That these people ''are not administrators'' is similarly not being argued. As far as "giving up" status and having it stripped goes, an ArbCom decision said that Kelly Martin "left under a cloud." It ''demoted'' Tony Sidaway. Both are at en.admins.irc, and Greg Maxwell is simply not an administrator at en.wikipedia. He's a meta administrator, but I'm not aware of his being an admin at en.wikipedia at any point. However, people who give up their status ''give up their status,'' and being at that cursed channel is part of the status. If it's not, then why not open the channel to people who ''one day will be'' administrators along with people who once upon a time were administrators? I'm not being vindictive, here: it's simply built into the very definition of the thing. The arguments for its creation were that administrators needed to speak of sensitive materials. Well, why? So they could act. These people who are not administrators can't act. This isn't me being petty: I never supported segregating the beautiful people from the hoi poloi, but it's what the channel was supposed to do.
:#Go where the people are is, in fact, the critical feature. Admins are all over the regular wikipedia irc channel. Go there, because there are enough people there to turn the conversation away from abuse. In fact, the admins.irc channel is nasty precisely because it's ''not'' where The People are, but where only a small group is from time to time. The more populated the channel, the less commonly it goes into abuse. Every log I have seen of abuse has been when there are few people there, mostly like-minded about the central issue that admins are superior to users, that "clueful" people run things. They are philosophically inclined to believe it their right and responsibility to do what's "right" without policy.
:Finally, the people are the problem, but the medium gives them their freedom to abuse. It's like LSD: the sane people will have a slight entertainment, while the mentally unstable will make a very bad trip. ] 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm aware of one active non-admin wikipedian who requested "admission" to the channel and was last I heard roundly ignored. If that makes ay sense, it's a bit late and too hot for thinking. - <font color="black">]</font> 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Start an on-wiki procedure to appoint channel operators, so that we don't have clique accusations later. Remove all the non-admins from the channel. Seems like the best solution. &mdash; ] 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::First, Geogre, if you'd read the discussion you'd note that I'm a newly-appointed chanop, which makes me part of the solution, not part of the problem (note: this presupposes that the arbcom is sane). I don't appreciate the comparison to Karl Rove and wonder whether it was necessary. I mean, you score some points but it hardly helps matters. I say "cherry-picking" because there's an indictment on the channel as a whole based on the selected behaviour of individuals. That does not make sense. As you rightly note, certain individuals are the problem. That's cause for individual condemnation, not some broad-based approach. If you're going to indict the "medium," you have to actually ''prove'' that the medium is corrupt; to assert it is simply not enough. ] ] 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::A note of clarification, none of the new channel ops were appointed by the ArbCom. ] ] 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you don't appreciate the comparison to Rove, but it's a ''Rove argument.'' It's exactly the kind of rhetorical flourish he's famous for. When evidence is presented of abuse, he says, "They cherry picked it." Well, how much would it take? The reason this is an issue, to answer the question the people who haven't followed all of this keep asking, is that ''on-wiki actions'' have been orchestrated on the "invisible" and unaccountable medium of that IRC channel. Each one of these actions has been quickly, if not instantly, reversed, but they just keep coming. Yes, the people are this problem, but there remains no rationale for the channel that shows any advantage to Misplaced Pages. What ''purpose'' does it have? What purpose does it actually ''serve'' that is not better served by media already in place that are already regulated, like AN/I? I asked that question a month ago and, unless I'm really biased, didn't get an answer that stood up. If, therefore, we have people who have to be "worked with" to get permission to change that channel and if these very people are demonstrably problematic, then what the heck are we doing? This is especially the case if they violate the very elitism the channel was set up to create.
:I've tried to be helpful, to offer positive solutions, as well as to condemn what exists now. My essay was an honest effort at working out the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Although some of my points are getting repeated, the hatred and scorn poured out on me by the problem users will prevent their ever admitting that there is a problem.
:Finally, I remind you of what we're talking about here. The subtext is not "play nice." That's lily livered. The subtext is "don't team up to beat on people in a private clubhouse." It's ''far'' more pointed than someone like me being obnoxious to Kelly. It's about blocking. It's about harassing. It's about pretending to be powerful. It's about encouraging new administrators to run roughshod over the project because they are important people. It's about ''learning to show some respect'' for the people who make Misplaced Pages, as those people are not the chanops who spend their lives on IRC. ] 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Geogre: Greg Maxwell is an admin on Commons. We need ''as many'' Commons admins in #admins as we can get. Yes, technically, English Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects; in practice, they have a lot of related issues, and we frequently need actions taken on Commons (such as nuking shock images being used for vandalism). --] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
===break 2===
{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Some insight into the reasoning:
::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*the AC has no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins. Really, it doesn't.
:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*The channel was originally set up as a hotline for admin help being requested, particularly by Jimbo or Danny, and it's damn useful for that.
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's not just for admins, it's for "trusted Wikipedians" of all sorts. There's Alphax on there as a Commons admin, Greg as a developer, etc. (That someone here may feel they have conclusive proof that a given chanop is a minion of Satan out to destroy Wikimedia is irrelevant to this - it's not yours to decide. I don't care. Really.) *and Greg is on as a Commons admin too, of course.
{{abot}}
*It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with or whatever). I'd like it if all new admins were invited onto it and someone should write up some suitable how-to process page.
*Many of the IRC logs received from the AC have clearly been edited and even when not don't include a metric shitload of off-channel communication that serves as context.
*There are admins already avoiding the channel because the cries of the torch and pitchfork toting mob above are making them afraid of what people would do with an out-of-context quote. So the AC going over the last six months of logs sent in from viewers looking for people to bring the vengeance of the Lord down upon really just is not likely to happen.


== Andra Febrian report ==
So the course of action chosen is to try to improve the tone of the place by leading from the front, hence the current /topic: speak like the person you're discussing is reading. And my frequent strong suggestions to behave better. YOU'RE ADMINS, DAMMIT, YOU WERE CHOSEN FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT. Mostly the channel shows that, by the way. Anyone characterising it as a festering snakepit that must be abolished is IMO smoking crack and I really can't take them seriously.
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
Note: I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to <s>kibitz</s> advise. I have level 40 on #wikipedia-en-admins because Jdforrester landed it on me. I'm in there a bit lately, when I'm home and my laptop is on and I remember.
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Cannot draftify page ==
Any questions that show evidence of a shred of good judgement? - ] 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Remove PCR flag ==
::::David I hope you will take my concerns seriously. ] ] 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== "The Testifier" report ==
:Quote: "It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with." Is there a reason why AN, ANI or even email cannot be used for this? Why the insistence on spurious - spurious, because this is clearly not happening - privacy that is only ever going to feed accusations of a cabal? Given that this channel seems to be causing far more wikidrama than it's worth, is there really a compelling argument as to why this should be kept? ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
::Because sometimes one wants a quick answer, because sometimes one is dead wrong and when ten people say HELL NO one gets awareness of it, because in many cases it creates ''less'' drama than ANI. Though I prefer ANI ''as well''. Saying "we decided it on IRC" on admin matters is not a good way to do things, way definitely. Your point is a really important one and one to keep in mind: transparency has to be consciously worked for - ] 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::And I want the channel kept because it's damn useful for what it's damn useful for, and abolishing it would lose that without, my psychic powers predict, diminishing the dramatists' valiant and assiduous defense of the wiki or whatever they're doing one iota - ] 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to know is ] making the above comments with the sanction and public approval of the arbcom, or are they just using him as a barometer of our opinions. No, I'm afraid a comment alone from Fred will not suffice, something a little more concrete from the arbcom is required. 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC){{subst:unisgned|Giano II}}
::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
:::::The above are David's private views. They do not represent the consensus view of the ArbCom. ] ] 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not speaking for the AC (I'm not on the AC, as noted), I'm speaking for me, though the matter is in a lot of discussion at present and I've asked the AC to stop by and clarify if any of them feel I've misrepresented things - ] 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
:::::Can you explain your role in regard to the arbcom mailing list? ] 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
::::::I did, above: "I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to <s>kibitz</s> advise." Ex-arbitrators stay on the AC list as they choose - ] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


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


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


</div>
:::It is not just incivility, it is bullying and harassment and attempting to "get rid" of editors. This been condoned by the arbcom, by their assenting silence, - the only solution is to abolish the channel, then no-one has to worry about tackling Jim Forrester (I'm not frightened of him anyway) ] 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
::::::I agree that it is more than just incivility, and I don't assent. ] ] 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
]


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


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


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
::And the solution is not just to make more people ops, it's to ask people to be nice and use their admin-given judgement more. These are smart people, and if they have bursts of stupid then the first thing is to try really hard to stop those. This is the diplomatic solution and lacks the emotionally-satisfying and crowd pleasing character of a really good 'Bungee Saddam' Christmas special, but I submit is more likely to make things actually better - ] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
:::The fact that you are so disgusting as to mention "Saddaam" in this context is indicative of the behaviour and level of rubishing anyone who opposes that channel receives. I have been on the receiving end of long enough to know every nasty little trick used. You are going to have to find new depths to sink to now. ] 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
:Any other questions? - ]5 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
::Well, you've already implied that I'm among those who in your opinions "are smoking crack" and can't be taken seriously, so I suppose it would do me little good to ask a question, O your excellency. &mdash;] (]) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]

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

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

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

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

===break 2.5===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My impression based on ''one whole day'' would be that the channel was 60% silly, 25% productive admin work, and 15% complaining about things... the last including occasional incivility which I'd consider on par with what is normally seen amongst admins '''on''' Misplaced Pages. One person was called a 'clown', there was a '''joking''' suggestion to ban everyone who supported a particular featured article, an old major dispute was discussed and one of the primary participants complained about, et cetera. Not perfect and surely not the worst which has taken place, but nothing which couldn't be managed. There was markedly less nastiness than ''this'' discussion for instance. --] 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*CBD has the thread here. It's part of the last 15% that we'd generally like to deal with, but sometimes it can't be avoided&ndash;especially when this very topic came up and partisans from both sides were in channel. On the other hand, as you rightly note, nothing was said there that wasn't said here, and it's also my impression that the conversation on IRC was more polite. This may be because on IRC you can be kicked for being a jerk. ] ] 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Thank you CBD, for actually investigating on your own and not just believing the mindless hype. The way some of the way people on here talk about it, you'd think #admins goes through a dozen kittens a day, and that's just the ones used for ''sacrificial'' purposes (feasts not included). --] 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*So how do you propose we deal with people on Misplaced Pages who are jerks? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but this place frequently turns downright nasty. ] 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Well, blocking used to work, but recently this whole place has become downright partisan that the blocks are overturned even when the person really deserves it. As a result, the person feels vindicated, and continues on with the bad behavior. --] 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Obviously the answer is to delete WP:AN and subpages and salt them. Also, if we make a rule against incivility, that should stop it in its tracks - look how effective ] is - ] 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Oh yes, we definitely a board where people can come complain to mommy that "that nasty person hit me after I kicked him". ] 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*This always confused me. Misplaced Pages has no jurisdiction over the IRC channels, fine. If they were closed down people would only find other ways to communicate, yes, that's all well and good. But Misplaced Pages currently ''explicitly sanctions'' use of these specific IRC rooms, by pointing people to them on ] and ]. If Misplaced Pages wishes to bear no responsibility for these rooms, and insists that what happens in there does not relate to what happens on Misplaced Pages, then they should not be plugged on-Wiki, right? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree. ] ] 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the discourse and look at this in cost-benefit terms? Sure the channel has uses, but noncontroversial alternatives seem to exist for all of those uses. Misplaced Pages is almost entirely a volunteer operation. Part of the reason why millions of people have joined up is because it's an open meritocracy. Admin-only IRC introduces a degree of opaqueness. Although the overwhelming majority of that may be responsible dialog, a small number of serious problems can discredit the undertaking. I doubt effective fail-safes can be implemented. If ArbCom doesn't have authority then I'd like to see that formalized by disaffiliating the channel from Misplaced Pages. It's a recipe for trouble to have a secret-but-leaky chat that 1000+ people can visit that lacks firm admission criteria and that putatively has a formal connection to Misplaced Pages outside the reach of ArbCom. I'm an eventualist on this issue, which means I've always suspected the channel will sink under its own weight but maybe the folks who like it can patch the hull. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sadly for you Cyde the logs show it is not "mindless hype" and that is why we are all here. According to you Mackensen above - there is no problem of huge concern? No wonder they chose him to be chan op! It's going to be another "let's wipe it under the carpet and save the arbcom" - He is of course on the arbcom mailing list. I think we are having our intelligence insulted here by Cyde, Mackensen and David Gerard, I expect as we speak they are rounding up further little IRC admins to come here with their 10 pennies worth - it is truly amazing - what are they going to come up with next? Watching these peole on the run is truly wonderous ] 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated. ] ] 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I in no way support you. You have been a member of that chanel and known full well what has been going on for ages, so suddenly why have you decided to do something about it, you have condoned it for ages with your silence. You just want to save the "club" at all costs, and when this has died down it will be just as it was before. ] 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::For all of one day. It's that dangerous, is it? ] ] 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::(''Note: Giano wasn't talking to CBD, he was talking to Mackensen. I've moved CDB's comment down to make that more clear.'' ] ] 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
::::::Giano, much as I am ''really'' enjoying the humor value in the implication that I am a 'little IRC admin in cahoots with David, Mackensen, and Cyde' (ROTFL)... 'not a battleground' comes to mind. Yup, people have done things they shouldn't have. Welcome to the human condition... you need to get over it. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 'forgive and forget', and all that. If everyone insisted that every wrong be punished we'd spend all our time fighti... <looks around> oh wait. You haven't been above reproach either and in expecting such lapses to be forgiven you should also understand the need to do so for others. People agreeing to 'try to do better' is a ''victory'' for everyone... and insisting that 'there will be no peace until vengeance is satisfied' a loss for all. --] 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Reading ]'s comments above, I have a second concern: he says he is on the ArbCom mailing list, as a former arbitrator. I had forgotten that non-Arbitrators have access to the ArbCom mailing list (I seem to remember ] calling herself an "arbitrator emeritus". And someone is bound to ask for a diff now). Who else, other than the current members of ArbCom, have access to the list (is there a list somewhere?)? Should they? -- ] ] 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I beleive there is over 20 of them, and when somthing interests them they all but in and have a say, which is why they can't reach concensus on this problem at all, they say they can't abolish the channel, but they could easily abolish the admins who use it, and of course the members of their own comittee who like to make such questionable use of it. ] 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser). I should think the committee is capable of cleaning its own house. ] ] 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I for one appreciate all the cleaning help I can get ;-) ] ] 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::The committee have proven themselves far from capable of cleaning any house let alone their own, in short they appear incompetent. Now, how many are on that list, precise number please? ] 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ginao, I one called you a ], I now see you are getting back at me ;-) ] ] 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm not a list-admin so I don't have the exact number, but I suspect you can count as well as I can. Take the current committee, add all former members plus Jimbo, throw on a checkuser or two, subtract Kelly Martin since she unsubscribed when she resigned her adminship and other offices, and you have your potential list. ] ] 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::No No NO we don't want throw in one or two, we want how many, and perhaps who, then we could amuse ourselves laughing at how many use the "secret channel". Why not ask David Gerard he runs the list doesn't he? He's bound to know. ] 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The subscriber's list is available to every member of the list. There are 29 members of the ArbCom mailing list. ] ] 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

There is no mention of an ArbCom mailing list at ] or ], or indeed ]. But, given what you say, it seems rather odd that there are more people on the list who are not members of ArbCom than those there are (12 current members listed at ], compared to 21 former members on the same page - less one - plus more from ] and "one or two" from ]). Given the overlap between the various categories, presumably the list at ] is quite close? -- ] ] 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think the names of those participating in the arbcom mailing list and the arbcom IRC channel should be public. Most input is useful. Although occasionally former arbitrators can weigh in with old issues I would rather not revisit. ] 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with Fred. ] ] 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


---- ----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
I've added a new section to WP:AC called ], which lists the current subscribers to the ArbCom mailing list. ] ] 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
repost from archive:


The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
===break 5===
why are we discussing IRC? IRC is off-wiki. AC has no jurisdiction there, we have no jurisdiction there, case closed. If there are problems, spell out in giant letters somewhere that IRC channels, even if called "wiki" have serve no official function on wikipedia, whatsoever. I've been an admin two years, and I've never been tempted to look into IRC. It's not part of Misplaced Pages, period. The AC must be out of its mind considering accepting evidence from IRC logs. Are they bored? Have they considered the difficulties, such as identity-theft and verifiability? Leave IRC alone, but crack down on anyone that takes IRC-feuds onto Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::As long as that IRC channel bears Misplaced Pages's name, and is, or is seen to be, an official organ of Misplaced Pages administration, then Misplaced Pages needs to be responsible for that IRC's actions. If on the other hand that channel were to be no longer affiliated with the encyclopedia, by changing its name, and by suitable public statements of disaffiliation, then the encyclopedia could wash its hands of any responsibility. ] ] 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify a few things for the purposes of this discussion:
*There are 272 people with access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel which constitutes about 25% of all English Misplaced Pages administrators. I'm not aware of any Misplaced Pages administrators asking for access for the very first time and not being given it (however I believe there have been instances where channel occupants have had their access revoked due to abuse).
*These days there are usually between 40 and 50 people in the channel at any one time.
*James Forrester is not the "self proclaimed owner of the channel". He is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorised to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.
*If Wikimedia/the ArbCom requested (e.g. through James Forrester) that the admins channel be shut down, then there would be absolutely nothing (apart maybe from goodwill on the part of Freenode) to stop people from creating an identical channel and picking up where they left off. The IRC channel is not a service of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such the Foundation only has peripheral authority through the fact that several of those with high-level access on IRC are also deeply involved in one way or another with the Foundation or Misplaced Pages.
*I think I got given operator access in this channel because I asked for it, to fix some faulty channel mode:s or something like that. From there, I have just done the occasional access-giving to admins new to IRC. Rarely have I had to use my operator access to op myself in order to diffuse a situation. I am more hesitant to kick or ban people from the channel, or remove their access, because they are admins. But I've always been a devotee of civility, as some on the WikiEN-l mailing list might know, and I'm happy to enforce a stricter level of civility in the channel into the future.
*The channel is more useful than some people are giving it credit. At least twice in the last week I have found the channel useful to discuss extremely sensitive matters, which would be entirely inappropriate to discuss in larger, more public channels like #wikipedia.
*I would like to know what this new position of the ArbCom means when it comes to IRC logging. At the moment, public logging of #wikipedia-en-admins is strictly prohibited. How are the ArbCom going to take into account statements made on IRC if such logs which they take into account cannot be posted as part of their decisions?
I hope some of that made sense to someone. - ] 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Re: arbcom... Logging and showing the log publicly isn't allowed, however private logging and mailing the logs to the private arbcom list is acceptable. (eg. many users probably have automatic IRC logging turned on for all channels) --] 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::But they're not exactly good evidence, since they can be so easily redacted. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Let alone altered or falsified outright. On-wiki the diffs do not lie. There is no such guarantee with any logs, especially when logs are furnished by parties with vested interests. The last logs I saw being circulated were three statements by James taken ''entirely'' out of context. If that's all that's being distributed, why in the world would ArbCom get involved and try to mete out punishment when they know so little of the situation? --] 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::No that is not "all that's being distributed". The many logs I've seen have been apparently complete and unedited, and some have been independently verified. ] ] 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::However, the logs posted publicly were redacted, and that's what most people have seen. The decision to supply complete logs to the committee came ''after'' multiple people on the mailing list pointed out the severe problems that redacted evidence posed. ] ] 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Because folks who think they've been wronged are threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue because it's unfair to them. ] 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::It applies to both sides. Everyone just needs to let it go. However, there's one person in particular who can't seem to do that, and as a result, it just goes on, and on ... ] 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::"Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue" - Cyde are you really suggesting that this is all a terrible fit-up and the ArbCom have been mislead? Hardly credible - I'd like to know why Freenode prevent public logging, perhaps there's some means by which they will make an exception for us - we could then release the logs in something akin to the ] - except 30 days perhaps, this would bring transparency to the channel, but preserve the immediate effectiveness of it for private deliberations. --] | ] 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Much worse things have been said on-wiki than anything the ArbCom has looked at from the #admins channel. ArbCom didn't seriously take any actions against the on-wiki stuff and they aren't seriously taking any actions against the #admins stuff either. This is just an advisement message. And no, the thirty day thing wouldn't work. Some of the stuff dealt with is stuff that needs to stay private over legal lifetimes &mdash; that is, decades. The only possible way for public logging to work would be for someone to go through and redact everything that cannot be said in public. I don't see that as being workable. Alternatively, #admins could be opened up and a new channel for dealing with private issues could be started elsewhere. I don't think that would solve the accusations of cannibalism, however. --] 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I don't think Cyde knows what logs the ArbCom members have seen. ] ] 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::So do we ever get to know what logs have been considered in reaching any given ruling? The standard seems to be "discussing off-wiki is okay, but it must be justified on-wiki". --] 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Given the leaky nature of the channel I would have thought anything that sensitive should be confined to emails anyway. What other arguments are there against publicising the logs? --] | ] 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If much worse things have been said on-wiki then where are the law-suits?--] | ] 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You're conflating two separate and highly different issues. One issue is common incivility against other Wikipedians (which happens on and off wiki). There are no legal ramifications. The other issue is stuff that must be discussed privately to avoid legal complications. This is not ever discovered on-wiki. As for the leaky nature of logs &mdash; yes, that is why, largely, other channels are being used to handle the tricky legal issues. --] 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid this is all getting very nastily near to the truth for Cyde! ] 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
I would like to clarify that Freenode no longer uses the concept of "group contacts" for channels with no official relationship to the thing being discussed. I don't believe that any change to the logging policy is being proposed at this point. While I could be mistaken (and would welcome a link to the salient Freenode policy if I am) I believe that the logging policy is a tradition carried over from #wikipedia rather than a Freenode matter. I would hope that everyone involved in the channel would adhere to the highest standards of Wikilove. Be excellent to one another and to those not present. If there are any current and ongoing problems with misuse of the channel, I would welcome any logs emailed to me privately. ] Co., ] 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would hope so too, but this has demonstrably not been the case - so, in your opinion public logging is possible? I'd be a lot happier with a published, unredacted log for everyone to see and comment and be judged by. --] | ] 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't believe that additional logging is warranted unless there is still a problem. I am unconvinced that there is a present or ongoing problem at this point, since the users of the channel largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent public criticism of the channel. I repeat my offer to investigate any logs emailed to me privately that show a present and ongoing problem. ] Co., ] 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::That's all well and good, but the point is I'm still in a position where I, and every other non-admin - just has to take your word for it. What I've seen over the past months, leads me to believe that there are personalities at wikipedia, in positions of trust, that abuse that trust. with 1000 admins you'd expect a few rotten apples - but when ArbCOM are implicated - you'd expect resignations really. It seems they are unable to police even themselves, let alone the rest of us - I'd prefer to be in a wikipedia, where behaviour like that isn't condoned by the authorities. --] | ] 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Step right up to ]; if you ask I'll probably nominate you myself. Got a problem with the process there? So do I; visit ] and make yourself heard to help get it fixed. Want to join the channel but not an admin? Become one of the trusted non-admins in the channel by making your case to any chanop. I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee is implicated in anything other than inaction brought about chiefly by jurisdictional concerns. Until recently we treated IRC as completely outside our jurisdiction. Obviously, this is changing. ] Co., ] 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::ArbCom isn't implicated. There's one person making lunatic claims that are wholly unsupported by any evidence. The channel is being watched by a ''multitude'' of people. --] 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well you wont mind the logs being made public from now on then. I think I'd like to be one of the ''multitude'' --] | ] 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sure. Any chance you'll open up your correspondence? I'm certain you've nothing to hide either. How about the other commentators on this thread? Come on, give us your emails. Phone conversations would be good to. Talk to your wife about Misplaced Pages before bed? We'll need that to, thanks! Please transcribe private thoughts on a section of your userpage as you have them as well. This is an open project, after all. Call it ''reducto ad absurdum'' if you must, but where does it end? ] ] 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Even #wikipedia doesn't allow logging. It would hardly make sense to have the private admins channel logged, but not the general users channel. Go try to get logging allowed in #wikipedia first, and then we can talk. --] 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Cyde, you know damn well there's evidence - it's been submitted to the ArbCom - again, do you think it was a fit-up? Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way, and the best we can come up with is "people have been quite naughty on both side - please stop. For those of you looking on we're going to keep the doors shut for legal reasons, but just trust us everything is going to be ok from now on." mmmmm -And for that matter - no, I'd have no problem with any of my wikipedia business being made public, in fact, wait a minute - I don't use back channel communications.--] | ] 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::And we're just going to have to trust that last assertion? ] ] 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I think if this damning evidence of conspiracy that you spoke of actually did exist, the ArbCom might take some action. As it is, all they're talking about is minding civility on the channel. Stop repeating this hurtful, false, and unsupported accusation. It's not helping ''anything''. You haven't even seen this so-called "evidence", merely blindly repeating something you've heard from others. It's wrong. Stop repeating it. It's little more than vicious gossipy rumors. --] 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I wouldn't make the same assumption Cyde is making here. It is possible that the ArbCom has choosen not to act yet, for other reasons than lack of evidence. ] ] 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You should assume good faith until it is proven that doing so is untenable yes. My point is that I can't do that now with certain individuals. I'm not looking for complete transparency (from your comment above Mac) - I see the necessity of private communication - but this channel has been abused, to correct the public perception of it, no amount of assurances are really going to work and the scramble to protect it just adds fuel to the suspicion that there's something wrong with it. Let's make a clean breast of things, lets have some openeness, frankness, honesty and integrity. --] | ] 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed, no amount of arguing to the contrary will convince people of the innocence of the accused. ] ] 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
===break 6===
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
::::::::"But this channel has been abused" &mdash; Can you please, please, offer up some evidence to support this assertion? And especially the assertion of, "Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way." These are very bold statements, but they also happen to be unsupported. It's not a good idea to make damaging and controversial assertions without evidence. Until you have more to go on than "But someone else said it", please desist. --] 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
:::::::::Cyde, I'm not here to trade insults or argue semantics with you. I ''have'' seen the logs and we could argue whether conspiring to remove an editor from wikipedia might be considered grossly uncivil. - The whole problem with substantiated arguments is precisely what I'm arguing - make the logs public, and everyone gets to see the behaviour, remove the rather convenient - "you can't substantiate that accusation" because no-one can publish the log. --] | ] 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
::::::::::Please forward these logs to me then, so that ''I'' might review the evidence (and compare it against my own logs to make sure it is accurate). --] 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
::::::::::Or at least clarify what it is that you're talking about. If these are the logs regarding Giano's block, well yes, I've seen them and I'm dismayed by them, and steps are being taken. This, I believe, has already been discussed. If you have something new, say so. ] Co., ] 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
:::::::::::That's still not very clear. That could be any of a dozen times. ''Which'' block are we talking about? I at least want to go through my logs and see if I can find any of this evidence of a vast conspiracy. --] 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
::I think the best thing now is for Cyde to become cylent, and allow the arbcom to finish their deliberations. ] 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
::: And I think the same would apply to you as well. ] 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".


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


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
Whatever, I'm honoring Cowman's closing of this thread (even though it's been overturned by Fred) and I'm refusing to continue with this mudfight. It's as plain as day to me that this isn't going ''anywhere'' productive. --] 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.


---
We really could do better than this. Giano (and Geogre too, for that matter) whenever you feel moved to make a personal attack on someone, please consider ''not'' doing so. And if goes without saying that if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano, they should also knock if off. While people are engaging in these gross and unacceptable personal attacks they are not helping Misplaced Pages. --] 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::*"''if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano''" "if???" You are behind the times Tony! However, you always have been a little out of touch with the mood of things here, anyway having proved my point beyond all reasonable doubt, I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion . The whole thing is now ridiculous if you, Cyde, Mackensen and your friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then you may, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from it are shunned, ignored or laughed off, then what the hell. The place and its occupants are now thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, and unless I am yet again commented on and attacked, I shallbe saying very little more on the subject. I shall not be funding but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and their non-nadmin cronies from now on. As far as I'm concerned they are in effect de-sysoped as they have forfeited all respect. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. ] 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Please consider carefully your use of language above. This isn't a school playground, it isn't about one faction or another "winning", being discredited, or whatever; as always it's about the continuation of behavior that is obviously damaging the community and the encyclopedia. If you've given money to the Foundation in the past, as a fellow editor I say thank you. All such donations are voluntary but nonetheless welcome. I'm just asking you, next time you feel that you should make a personal attack like this, to reconsider. That's all. It's no more than Misplaced Pages policy expects of all editors. That includes you. --] 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there. ] 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Within moments of the advising Tony to tell it to IRC admins he was indeed on the channel denouncing me yet again, denying any wrong doing on the IRC admin channel. Apparently I'm a fantasist. Where I wonder are the amazing new policemen? - well I told you nothing would change, but I did rather think they might behave themselves for longer than half an hour. They just cannot help themselves, so within seconds of me saying publicly all over this site I was through with the subject, they are all up to their old tricks. What would happen if I quote the logs here? Do I have your permission to quote your words, Tony, Doc Glasgow, and Phil Boswell? ] 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*If you can manufacture some kind of conspiracy out of what I have been saying in the admins channel today, you are more than welcome to try. So long as you quote '''everything''' I said, providing proper context (timestamps would be nice also), without any kind of elision, summarising or editorialising, fire away. HTH HAND —] | ] 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::Do you really think I'm daft enough to give you the timestamps! ]
:::::Whilst trying to answer a question about how this whole thing started I said on IRC "Doc_glasgow> The problem is, that when people believfe Giano has a free pass, they DO conspire, from a sense of injustice, to find a way to convince the community to act and stop his nastiness". I stand by that remark as my impression of what has happened. I was not 'denouncing you' in secret. There is a vicious circle: 1) your incivility isn't dealt with. 2) People feel aggrieved and discuss it. 3) You get paranoid and indulge in more incivility. I said nothing I haven't said on-wiki before. I have posted this analysis on an arbcom talk page in the past. Why anyone felt it helpful to send you the logs I have no idea! But that person out to be booted, not for breaching confidence, but for trying to stir up trouble and feed trolling. You are appearing like a fantasist, you are seemingly paranoid, and you are being quite nasty. And please don't try to have a civility contest with me - you lose.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't need to Doc - you do a fine job yourself. ] 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::You have my permission to quote anything I've said or will say on or . (Those are the only channels I visit, and indeed I plan to keep my involvement with to the strictest minimum in future.) ] | ] 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).


Reposted above from archive, see ]
:: Yes, you're a fantasist. This isn't a secret, nor does stating this as a fact amount to a personal attack. You have repeated false claims of a conspiracy, most of them made up out of whole cloth, some of them supported by dubious readings of purloined logs. Please stop. It is harming Misplaced Pages and the community, --] 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Let nobody say you weren't warned, lets see who dares to block you for personal attacks. lets see where your free pass is. Come on Mackensen where are you?, what you Kylu? Lar? have you an opinion ] 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::As it happens I'm working on the ]. Since I've never blocked anybody for personal attacks and as I've stated openly that I don't support such blocks I cannot begin to fathom what you're trying to prove here. ] ] 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'm proving that the new policing by yourself is none too imptressive - is it? Of course this whole business is just another example of the IRC goading that one has to contend with, they say these things on IRC to infuriate (they succeed) . Sadly their days on their poisonous channel though are now numbered. I shall not insult any of the above (as they would like me to) I'm sure all other editors can see exactly what sort of people they are, without my adjectives. ] 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::No, you're not, actually. Nothing was said in the channel today that in any way contravenes civility. Go ahead, post all the logs you want, because there's ''nothing there''. What goading? What are you even talking about? ] ] 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: I am not responding to your bait any longer. We obviously have very different interpretations of civility. I cannot be bothered to argue with you and your cohorts any longer. The channel is doomed, it has lost all creditability along with those of you who inhabit it. Please just stay away from me, do not comment on me and if possible do not discuss me on your sordid channel, that way their will be peace on wikipedia. Thank you ] 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::: Nothing would give me or anyone else any greater pleasure. I daresay no one on that channel wants the least bit to do with you and would gladly stay out of your way. In turn, of course, you have to stay out of theirs. I'm not baiting and I'm not goading; I'm asking honestly and with restraint how you think civility was breached this morning. If you're not willing to answer that's fine but don't then turn around and criticize me for not doing anything about it. Yours, ] ] 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::You had your chance - now go away and leave me alone - please! ] 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sorry to be prolonging this thread here, but this is a direct response to what Mackensen says above. Mackensen, I don't understand your thinking when you insist that Giano should quote the log for today, or when you ask that he show how civility was breached (which is in turn hardly to be done without quoting). Aren't you asking rather a lot ? Tony Sidaway, the person who (in my opinion) did make attacks this morning, has been asked for permission to quote his words, but hasn't replied. Consequently Giano would be banned if he did quote them. Wouldn't he? ] | ] 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
:::::::::::::I think the question has been rendered moot. I have the impression that Giano would like to leave the matter where it sits, and I want to respect that wish. However, since you asked, allow me to clarify: I didn't ask Giano to post logs, though it's quite obvious he has them. A private communication would have been more than sufficient. I was mainly asking for clarification as he had me (and, still has me) at a disadvantage. Again, I've reviewed the logs from this morning on my own, and I see nothing&ndash;from any party&ndash;that rises to the level of a personal attack or would be construed by an uninvolved party as incivility. However, if you'll note below, I've taken the step of banning all further discussion regarding, mention of, or inference to Giano and these related matters. Under the circumstances, it isn't possible for those things to be mentioned without someone taking offence, and I've had more than enough drama this month. I should think we all have. Yours, ] ] 17:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: To clarify, in my opinion not one word that I have said about Giano on that channel comes close to being a personal attack, I consider none of the words I have uttered about Giano on that channel or anywhere else to be confidential. Nothing I have said there about the ongoing problematic behavior of Giano and one or two editors, to wit, their baseless personal attacks and their fantasies of a conspiracy, is other than what I have said on the wiki. Giano is a problem editor as long as he continues to launch false and baseless attacks on other editors. We have to recognise this fact in order to achieve a solution. --] 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
----
I'm hoping that draws a line under it all. Please, just stop now, it's not getting anyone anywhere. You think other people actually enjoy this? You think it makes us feel one jot better about contributing? You think it improves the mood or the tone? Think about the impact you have on others. If you have to do this, go and do it at arbitration and agree a settlement '''for once and for all'''. Let us have our encyclopedia back. Please, simply end it now. No more words. Thank you. ] <small>]</small> 12:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


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


::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:If ArbCom cannot deal with this, why are we having this conversation? Only tempers are flying. If Jdforrestor controls the wikimedia channels, can we not have a simple appointment process for channel operators who can deal with off-wiki civility issues off-the-wiki? It is as simple as that, otherwise I do not see anything other than hypocrisy. &mdash; ] 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Notice ===
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Per Giano's (and, frankly, my own) wishes, I have banned all in-channel discussion of him and related disputes, regardless of content and motive. We're at the point where good faith simply cannot be assumed, and it's time to move on. We have articles to write; an encyclopedia to build. Yours, ] ] 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:Mackensen, I think this is a very good idea, and want to thank you for doing this. ] ] 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
::::* To who would this be a threat?
::::* Which law?
::::* In which country?
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


===Suggestion (2nd)===
I haven't read all the above, but David Gerard did emphasise that the WMF and Misplaced Pages organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over wikipedia IRC channels, which is fair enough, though I wonder whether they are allowed to use wikipedia in the channel name if this is the case. Maybe the names should be changed to include the qualification 'unofficial'?


:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My main point is that if they are unofficial and Misplaced Pages has no jurisdiction there, doesn't that place the wikipedia IRC channels in the same class of organisations, like Misplaced Pages Review, Wikitruth, Uncyclopedia and similar critical, humorous and attack organsiations, that are clustered around the behemoth that is Misplaced Pages? ie. Related to but not really part of it? If someone set up a website staffed by Misplaced Pages admins for Misplaced Pages admins to go to to get advice about admin actions on Misplaced Pages, would that be any different from the wikipedia IRC admin channel (apart from not being IRC)? If not, then I suggest leaving the IRC channels to stand or fall on their own merits, and simply make clear, here, on Misplaced Pages, that these IRC channels exist, but they are not official. Make them ex-officio, if indeed they ever were official. Then, if the IRC channels get a reputation for being closed and cliquey, and/or the wrong place to go to (I don't know the truth of this, as I've never been there), they will start to wither and die, and people will learn (or be prompted) to use on-wiki processes instead. ] 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*This seems a sensible reading of the situation. My only quibble is purely grammatical: ] doesn't mean what you think it means. IRC channels don't exist by virtue of any office, unless you're implying that administrators have, ex-officio, an expectation to entry in one or more channels. ] ] 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
**Presumably they will be handing Misplaced Pages's money back accordingly. ] 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
***As they've never received any in the first place (that I'm aware of) that should prove a simple exercise. ] ] 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
****Oh dear, I do hope the cheque didn't bounce. ] 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*****WMF gave a donation to Freenode, which is a free, open-source IRC network that provides much more than simply #wikimedia channels — it is in fact the largest FOSS IRC network in the world. None of the donation went to the people who you feel have wronged or conspired against you, it went towards the upkeep of an organization with similar goals as Misplaced Pages. Regards, —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*****Interesting, I didn't know about that. Well, go take it up with the Foundation if you like. As that donation was in the name of the Foundation, it would also include all the channels for the other-language Wikipedias. ] ] 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Well I think it was a lovely charitable idea, I wonder who thought of it, and in spite of constant appeals the foundation can afford to give money away. ] 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


* I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*This is one reasonable approach to take. ] ] 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]?
*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]?
*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]?
*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
**It is only reasonable if you start from the point that the channel is of net detriment to Misplaced Pages. Perhaps some dispassionate person should do a cost-benefit analysis to the project. I'd strong suspect that the net benefit is immense. (That's not to deny there may be some costs and problems.) I handle OTRS - in many instances I need help, second opinions, or oversight. I can't request that on-wiki for obvious reasons. I could e-mail, but that's inefficient. I'd have to e-mail dozens of people to guarantee a response - and each wouldn't know if it has been dealt with by the time they are reading it. The admins' channel allows me to call on, and discuss the issue, with a cross section of trusted people, and they is normally someone in there with the time to assist. (And yes, before someone points it out, some OTRS issues cannot be discussed even in that channel). Killing the channel would lose that, and I'm not convinced it would stop incivility. Frankly, I've experienced more incivility on-wiki.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
**Disaffiliating it would not mean killing it. And the issues with that channel are more than incivility. ] ] 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC) * Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
***Well then I don't understand. If you disaffiliate it, what is the intention? If it is to discourage its use, then you lose the benefits or at least decrease them. You also forfeit some level of control. Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel. And wouldn't the 'issues' still continue? Either the intention is to diminish/discourage the channel's use - in which case you are saying it is a net loss to Misplaced Pages. Is it? Or you are not intending to diminish its use - in which case, what's the point?--]<sup>g</sup> 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*''"Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel''" Please someone, anyone tell me I have not just read that phrase, after all that has been said, all the lies told, is Doc seriously suggesting that the arbcom have indeed been watching over the channel all the time? This whole thing is sickening me. ] 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*Giano, the way I read Doc G, he is referring to the way ArbCom members are ''currently'' watching the channel. Things are being done, by the looks of it. Even if it is not precisely what you want done, can you consider stepping back for a bit to let things settle down? Then things can be reviewed in a month or so. Constant argument is not productive. Unless something really bad happens, please let things calm down. ] 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::I stepped back once today - remember? ] 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid I haven't been following the whole thing that closely, so no, I don't remember. ] 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
===Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins===
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
Copied from ]
* #wikipedia-en-admins was proposed , given specific mandates and announced on the WikiEN mailing list . It continues, by all accounts, to be a place intended for discussion among wikipedia admins for wikipedia issues. The foundation donates money to irc in recognition of its importance to wikipedia. All actions there, including who becomes channel ops, should be accountable to the arbcom and the wikipedia community. The latest posting by the arbcom only partially acknowledges this , they need to do better. To start with, a complete review of channel ops should be done - on wiki and transparently (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
If WMF and Misplaced Pages organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins then who does? The operators of the channel? If so, then the wikipedia community should choose who these people are (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --] 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
*There's a flaw in your reasoning. The Foundation donated money to Freenode recognizing the importance of '''all''' IRC channels, and not just the English-language ones. #wikipedia-en-admins is a comparatively small operation (#wikipedia, for example, usually has at least 250-300 people in it). ] ] 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
::I didn't intent to say the money was in recognition of #wikipedia-en-admins in particular. Yes, I should have been clearer. ''donates money to '''irc''' in recognition of '''its''' importance'' --] 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}
:::I think you need to read between the lines of . The post says: ''"We hope it will help the servers to keep running smoothly"'' - ie. there had been problems with the servers (which also explains why it was a one-off donation). The post also ends with: ''"We also renew our condoleances for the death, 2 months ago, of FreeNode founder, aka Lilo."'' - this refers to the death of ]. My reading of the post is that the donation is to help Freenode through a difficult period following the death of its founder. The Wikimedia Foundation is big enough now to stand on its own two feet (and maybe Freenode is as well, I don't really know), but consider what might have happened if Jimbo had died suddenly (Rob Levin was knocked down by a car while cycling) during the first year or two of Misplaced Pages. Imagine the chaos that could have caused, and how a donation might have helped. ] 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Who runs the #wikipedia-en-admins channel and who do they answer to in that regard? What is the chain of command? And is the following quote correct? --] 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:''...as per Freenode policy, any channel with the word Misplaced Pages in it is an official, sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel. It doesn't matter who wants to put what there, if its not offical, it can't go there...''


:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
: If I remember correctly, it's ]. But who cares. Just shut the damn channel down already. —<b><font color="#00FFFF">]</font>] (])</b> 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
:
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
: Try <tt>/cs access #wikipedia-en-admins list</tt>, but the highlights (in no particular order) are myself, Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jimmy, Angela, Mark Ryan, Mackensen, sannse, Uninvited Company, David Gerard, Kat, and FloNight. The "top dogs" are Essjay, Jimmy, and myself. I'm in eventual command of all Wikimedia IRC channels, by virtue of being "Group Contact Chair". The quote is correct, ish. We have an odd relationship with Freenode - I'm "officially unofficial", as it were.
{{ab}}
: ] ] 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
:: Hi James (may I call you "Group Contact Chair"?) - just out of idle curiousity, just to humour me - which of those names above are '''not''' on the arbcom mailing list? ] 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}


A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know about the others, but I'm certainly not involved with the arbcom in any respect, beyond voting in the elections. - ] 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Then you've done a wonderful job managing 99% of the irc channels. #Misplaced Pages-en-admins is a special case - it holds a unique amount of power and influence, has special status from the way it was set up, and it has cause this incredible mess.
:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Do you answer to the community with regards to irc, the arbcom?
:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'd like to suggest that the admin community from en and commons select the ops for this channel to serve under your leadership. I think that would address many of the fears, some of the pathological symptoms the arbcom has acknowledged, and maybe some of the underlying illness too.--] 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I would disagree that the ''channel'' holds "power and influence" - the people who hang out there have wiki-priviledges, and have influence through people's trust in them. It also hardly has "special status" - there are quite a few private invite-only Wikimedia-related IRC channels; this is merely the most publically-known.


:Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I can control the ''channel'' (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the ''people'' - I feel that a great deal of the concern in the channel is actually mis-placed, and should be directed at the members of our community with whom some have issues.
::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::: In my r&ocirc;le of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee; in the end, I suppose I answer to the Board, but that is something that has never come up, so I'm not sure that there's a conceptual framework with which all interlocutors readily agree.
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
::: I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't - were I to fail to talk to someone (through my ignorance), would it be seen as a snub of said community's ideals? I'd feel uncomfortable, I suppose - it's not my (currently) place to deign to designate the aristocracy of a wikicommunity. Note, BTW, that I'm a member of the Committee whose noting of fears you reference. :-)
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.


::: ] ] 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br>
:::: (The following comments on the above by Duk have been moved out of the body of James F's comments where they were originally embedded, in order to make it possible (for me at least!) to read James F's comments. In the following, I am inserting a brief reference to the paragraph to which Duk responds so that the context of Duk's comments can be understood. --] 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: ''I would disagree that the channel holds "power and influence"...''
:::: Then we disagree. The channel does hold a special place, not only in the way it was set up, but in who gets invited there. And also because of the special problems it has caused.--] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: ''I can control the ''channel'' (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the ''people...''''
::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: You can control who the ops are, correct? --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] backlog doin' great ==
::: ''In my rôle of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee...''
::::Agree, its murky, I don't envy your position. But now it has come up, in a big way. This channel is different since it was discussed and set up in WikEN-L, and the foundation partially funds it. --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


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


That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: ''I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't...''
:::: We *do* have a formal admin community - it's here on the wiki. Come on James. --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


== Call for mentors ==


There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: The the channel in question (and possibly more, as you say) is an invitation only place that has accountability designed '''out''' it by virtue of secrecy and no logging. In reality, like minded friends go there and interact. It crackles with social energy. The arbcom (some of whom are regulars in that channel) has found "incidents involving gross incivility", only grudgingly after months of non-stop work by the victims, one of whom was threatened with banning while defending himself. They haven't yet corroborated (or denied) the allegations of character assassination and conspiracy. A quote from one of our articles (and I'm not implying criminal activity, this is just conceptual) - ''Under the common law the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society was sufficiently great.'' So what's the level of threat when a secret, closed group allegedly gangs up on and trys to drive away some of wikipedia's greatest contributers? What other cases have there been where the victims weren't lucky enough to see the logs? What consequences have been given to the people responsible for this "gross incivility"? What is going to happen next time - when the victims probably won't be lucky enough to see the logs
:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
::::This isn't about on-wiki-incivility on vs. off-wiki-incivility. When it happens on wiki people get a chance to hear each other and are therefore on a level playing field to resolve conflict. When "incivility" happens in irc and the victim isn't there, it can be predatory and destructive, opinions and minds can be poisoned against the victim, who might never know why everybody starts treating her worse and worse and worse. --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
::::: There have been numerous completely false and extremely damaging allegations of a conspiracy. The problem is that these absurd allegations have been taken seriously when they should--in the interests of the encyclopedia and the well-being of the community--have been rightly derided. The channel poses no threat to Misplaced Pages; indeed without this channel and others like it the work of Misplaced Pages administrators would be more difficult. --] 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
:::::: You know very well what has been going on, in addition to other matters, certain admins have arranged for editors to be wrongly blocked by other less experienced admins. The arbcom is aware of it, and are dealing with it (or have you been shown an arbcom mailing list which denies this?). Stop denying what you know to be true. Multiple logs have proved that the admins channel has been abused in a disgraceful way. The arbcom are only making this situation worse by allowing this matter to drag on, and people like yourself to make false and ridiculous speeches from decrepit and rotting platforms. ] 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby refute absolutely Giano's false and damaging accusations. --] 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
<-
* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Heritage Foundation ==
Tony, I think you mean "deny" or "reject" (that is, assert the falsity of) rather than "refute" (that is, prove the falsity of). But which "accusations" were you "refuting", by the way:


There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* that there were numerous incidents of gross incivility on the IRC admins channel?
* that more experienced admins on the IRC admins channel encouraged less experienced admins to block certain editors in a manner that was widely considered wrong?
* that the IRC admins channel has been abused in a disgraceful way?


== Deleted contributions request ==
And do you have any means of demonstrating that the "accusations" are false, other than bare assertion? -- ] ] 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Arbitrary section break at Ideogram ===
::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Giano's assertion "that more experienced admins on the IRC admins channel encouraged less experienced admins to block certain editors in a manner that was widely considered wrong" appears to refer to Kylu blocking him. There is no supporting evidence. The fact that Giano continues to make this assertion indicates his paranoia-distorted reality. Simply believing such a thing could occur is an insult to Kylu's intelligence. It was this absurd assertion and Giano's subsequent refusal to admit he could be wrong that have earned him my enmity. --] 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
::::: There may have been gross incivility on IRC, as there is sometimes on this wiki. On IRC, I've never witnessed anything approaching the casual and gross incivility that I have seen on the wiki--that's surprising but it's true. The other two accusations are wild, unsubstantiated and obviously have no place on Misplaced Pages or indeed in any sane forum. Of course there is no need to demonstrate their falsehood. This isn't a kangaroo court. --] 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::: With respect, it's not a "wild, unsubstantiated" accusation. While the "evidence" is fairly thin (logs copied from wikitruth indeed) barring a refutation from Kmartin I've got no reason to doubt the veracity. And *cough* I'm well aware of the casual nature of "I thought it was a compromised account" malarky used as a justification for abuse of checkuser privledges. It's well and truly beyond the terms a of "good faith" when the high-level privledges are used for personal gain. - <font color="black">]</font> 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
*:::::: I've examined the purported log and see no evidence, not even "thin" evidence suggesting abuse of checkuser in that log. Kelly mentions that SlimVirgin complained to the ombudsman committee. Presumably they would have ruled on the matter if there had been any substance to it.


The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::: Now you say that you're ''well aware of the casual nature of "I thought it was a compromised account" malarky used as a justification for abuse of checkuser privledges.'' This suggests that you believe that abuse of checkuser is widespread. Please take your evidence to the appropriate forum.


:Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s>
*:::::: You say, further, that ''high-level privledges are used for personal gain''. That's an even more serious accusation than the original one made against Kelly. Please don't be shy, take your evidence to the Ombudsman's Committee. Or are you just making ''further'' wild, unsubstantiated accusations? --] 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
::The members of Arbcom seem convinced that there has been gross incivility on IRC, even if you have not witnessed it (I have not been on the channel, so have not either). In the absence of evidence either way, those of us who are not privy to the sort of private communications that convinced the Arbcom that there was gross incivility we will just have to recognise that you and Giano (and others) are making contrary assertions on these points too, unless or until Arbcom or another authoritiative decision-maker concludes one way or the other.
{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::But do you really think that your colourful adjectives (not just "accusations" or even "false accusations", but "damaging" and "wild" ones too; and I see that you say above that "allegations" are "absurd" and "derided" ) are helpful? It seems a bit contradictory to use such colourful language in one breath, and then complain about "juvenile taunting" in another. -- ] ] 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Hide this racist edit. ==
:::::Tony, I'm guessing that this situation is doubly hurtful to you, since you've campaigned for openness (a year ago on WikiEn-L with regards to an admin-only mailing list) and offered permission to publish all your comments from #wikipedia-en-admins. Very commendable and consistent. Maybe you're worried about guilt by association of what the arbdom calls "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", but the closed nature of the channel is preventing you from defending yourself, or from showing that the channel isn't always such a bad place. It could be worse - this discussion could be going on in a secret channel you're excluded from, where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you. Secrecy and censorship suck.
{{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::But still, the main problem here isn't "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", as bad as that is. Sometimes tempers flair and people get grossly uncivil, sometimes in self-defense. When it happens on wiki, back and forth communications and a road to dispute resolution is still open, people hear each other. However, when it happen behinds people's backs, in a secret closed meeting room of like minded admins with no intent of dispute resolution, then it's destructive in nature and corrupts our leadership and our culture. People who go down that road should take a long look at themselves and ask whether they are really interested in creating a 💕, or if they are more interested in power and status and destroying their enemies. --] 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::*:::I'm afraid Tony's mouth is only part of the problem. The crux is the arbcom itself, who are so ashamed of some of their members behaviour in this matter (and equally importantly the behaviour of some of their closest friends) they cannot reach agreement on how to solve the problem. If they had a grain of common sense, and feeling for wikipedia, the matter would now be firmly closed and finished, but they are torn between their loyalty to each other, and their duty to wikipedia. I suppose they should all resign if they can't reach agreement, but I don't think they have quite enough honour between them for that! So they will allow this to drag on rather than finish the totally discredited #wikipedia-en-admins which is the obvious solution. I had dropped this matter, but the arbcom's friends (i.e. Tony) cannot help themselves, they are so afraid that their power base is going to be completely destroyed they have to keep digging away seemingly unaware it is the admin channel's justly deserved grave they are digging. ] 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Ideogram, your assertion linking Giano and Kylu is fortunately false. Neither of them thinks resp does what you state. :-) --] 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
:::If you don't mind, I'd like to hear that from Giano. --] 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
: We do need to do something about problem editors on the wiki. This kind of juvenile taunting is never acceptable on Misplaced Pages. --] 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


*
::Hello, Tony! I see you are trying to calm the debate in your own inimitable style again. -- ] ] 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*


Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Tony has a temper. His phrasing is often inflammatory. I would not try to defend Tony in these matters.
{{Abot}}


== 96.230.143.43 ==
:::I am far more concerned with Giano's behavior. ALoan, as someone friendly to Giano, I would ask you to advise him, publicly, to avoid inflammatory posts such as , , , , , , indeed about eighty percent of Giano's contributions to this thread.
{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have no desire to side with Giano's "enemies" but his behavior has earned him my enmity all by itself. --] 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Ut oh, is that a declaration of bad faith? --] 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== StoneX Group Inc. ==
===Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (section break)===
:::::::*What I find strange about this whole thing is your stance that the whole channel is (insert hyperbole here). It's a channel, no different than many on wiki pages, and there are various contributors to it. Taking the fact that there has been some bad behavior (actually I've not really personally seen it, I just take that on faith based on the number of people that have said as much) and equating that with a need to completely shut it down is equivalent to saying the fact that there has been some terrible behavior on wiki means the whole wiki needs to be shut down. Not very many people nor evidence back your claims that everyone in the channel is behaving terribly, nor that the whole channel and all it's participants are disgraced. In fact claiming that all participants in the channel are deplorable people as you have essentially done, just reflects poorly on you. The reality is some relatively small percentage of the discussion there ranges from terrible and regrettable to not helpful. Hopefully the current efforts will be enough to clean up the channel, and allow the useful efforts there to go on. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*It dosen't matter if the "terrible" (which means what? just "incivility"?) accounts for 5% or 50% of that channel's activities, because we, the community, are not able to tell. If you wish to speak about "evidence" (which is not sensitive &mdash; and it is not) backing up anything, it needs to become publicly ''available''. Otherwise, invoking the word feels rather absurd. It was interesting to see how the Committee became divided over this issue, and how those whom I consider the more sensible arbitrators (before any of this happned) opposed the wildly pro-IRC "remedies" against Giano. But nevertheless, as a body, the Committee has been &mdash;and remains&mdash; far too equivocal, which, by extension, reflects poorly on it/you. ] 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::...''where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you'': Wow, Duk - that's some paranoia (no offense). First, this is the internet, not ] - nobody's worst enemies exist online. Secondly, ''are'' people grossly and uncivilly maligning you/anybody? And if so, how do you know? Personally, I've never been in an admin-only channel/list and never will, but I've never assumed that people are even thinking about me in one - I'm simply not that important and, respectfully, neither are most other non-persistant-vandals. '''〈<font color="red">]</font><font color="red">]</font>〉''' 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Please go read the very first sentence of this section; ''Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention.'' This statement is from the ]. There isn't a problem with paranoid people imagining things - instead, there's a problem with documented events that people are blind to, even when written down and explained (no offense, VEЯS). --] 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Thank you for your input Taxman. I remember well how you promoted Carnildo to adminship when it was quite clearly against consensus, and how the usual leading names from the channel trotted out to say what a good idea it was. While I'm here it would be interesting to know what exactly Tony Sidaway is doing in the channel anyway as he is not an admin. ] 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Interesting that you jump straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the argument. It's clear from your biting sarcasm that you're not really interested in helping things improve, but that you're so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems. At least I made a good faith decision in consultation with other bureaucrats and can feel good about making a decision in the best interests of the project, and that my behavior throughout carried in it not the least bit of incivility. Can you say as much? But clearly it's not going to be fruitful to continue discussion. Steve brings a link to some pretty insightful words. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Perhaps Taxman, it is for others to see their parts in this. It is always convenient to shoot the messenger but in this instance the messenger is refusing to lie down and die. The channel has been abused, if people gather to discuss others in secret places, they cannot be surprised if they are accused of nefarious deeds, especially if they carry out some very strange acts following those secretive discussions. ] 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*I didn't think so. It is perfectly possible to give criticism while not engaging in behavior as bad or worse than those you are pointing the finger at. If you had maintained civility then there would probably be less controversy surrounding this, and more productive discussion, because the facts appear to speak for themselves. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Taxman, I realize that you don't know with any precision what has actually been going on in the admin channel, and still to a certain extent goes on. The evidence situation makes the discussion absurd, as El C says: the actual events must not be presented or discussed. I despair when I see the necessarily vague descriptions of "gross incivility", "character assassination" and "conspiracy" dismissed as "paranoia" above, and when I see you sarcastically suggest "(insert hyperbole here)". All I can do is make some bald, non-evidence-supported statements, and you, Taxman (and ''you'', dear reader), will have to decide if they bear the stamp of truth, and if I have any personal credibility. Thus: I know what goes on in the way of character assassination in en-admins because I've been ganged up on and attacked to my face, and I've seen others ganged up on and attacked behind their backs. I've seen admins asking for help in getting Giano blocked. The most distasteful thing I've seen there is the way instant decency has broken out when Jimmy Wales has dropped into the channel, and been as instantly withdrawn when he has left. I've sent my record of a couple of incidents to the arbcom, logged by myself and without one pixel edited, removed, or added; that's how the "numerous incidents involving gross incivility" were brought to their attention. (Perhaps other people have sent logs also, I wouldn't know. One neutral person, at my request, submitted his own logs for the same times as mine, and I hope that the two versions were compared.) Please don't shoot the messenger Giano—he wasn't there, though he is a victim of the bad channel culture—better shoot the witness if you don't believe me. One thing I've noticed is that when people actually manage to get hold of those or similar logs (not apparently a startlingly difficult feat, as many log the channel 24/7), they tend to stop saying "paranoia" and "hyperbole" and start saying "I'm shocked", and "I had no idea". (Quoting an arbitrator—I won't name him, but perhaps he'll name himself.) And here's an expressive small on my talk.


I’m concerned about the page at ]
Even if these things are true, why do I rake up the past, now that measures for cleanup are being taken? Several reasons: the channel isn't very clean, in my opinion—I've just decided not to go there any more, as there's now precious little support to be had, with both ] and ] having given it up in disgust. The new chanops no doubt do their best, in an authoritarian manner, to keep it civil; but they're not always there, and the more effective and proactive of them are ''far'' from always there. Is a channel that needs so much policing worth trying to keep on course? Its own culture is bad. Social meeting-places do develop cultures of their own—to say so is not indeed to claim that the members of it are all bad people, as you suggest in your ''reductio ad absurdum'' above. This one has a troubled past. In the very last exchange I saw in channel, yesterday, the policing was merely pushing the tone of discourse (in, as it happens, a discussion of Giano) from attack to insinuation. Secondly, the abusive chanops are still chanops, though they've chosen not to be active at the moment. The arbcom is, as far as I can gather, leaving them free to resume these leading roles at any moment of their choice. This, to me, is offensive—I actually find it hard to believe—and it seems to me a good reason to either shut down the channel, or open it to all. ] | ] 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
*Mcginnley raised this matter on my talk page, and I have responded there. ] ] 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:*And I have to your response there. ] | ] 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
*Note that I accepted from the outset that such behavior was going on, so you don't need to convince me. Terrible behavior goes on on wiki too. Should we shut the whole thing down? Deal with the behavior, don't throw out what's valuable. And no, I don't have any problem with removing chanops from people that have been shown to abuse them. I would hope that would be the norm, and yes, I would agree that's a problem if it's not happening. But it's also not shooting the messenger to point out that the way the message is delivered is making the problem worse. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*I'm disappointed that you insist on the margin rather than the center. ] | ] 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
::::*I'll just note that my disgust with the culture of #wikipedia-en-admins was a major motivator for my resigning as an administrator -- anything that distanced me from the goings-on in there seemed like a good thing. I know I only spent time in there to try to reign in the abuses of a few people like Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin -- people the community here would not trust as sysops but who, last I saw, still were among the most frequent chatters in the channel (and Kelly was still one of the chanops). I'm glad I no longer have access -- it was like a prison sentence. &mdash;] (]) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Get real Taxman and put your own house in order first, This messenger refuses to be polite to <personal attack removed again> who feel they can be as abusive as they like in the secrecy of their own disgusting channel, and then scream incivility when anyone publicly answers them back or rebukes them on wiki. The arbcom are too reticent to deal with these people, so that leaves me no choice but to handle them in my own way, at least I'm still here which is more than many of their victims are, so perhaps my way is best for wikipedia. ] 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*I would hope the incongruity of refusing to be polite (while insulting others) at the same time as pointing out the incivility of others is not lost on anyone. You're just as bad as they are. Pray tell why should your behavior be ignored, while others are sanctioned for the same thing? Just because you're still here doesn't mean all your actions are helpful, or that there aren't better ways of approaching it. But again it's clear you aren't interested in following the civility policy, so I'll do my best not to respond further. I think my points have been made. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*It is a huge pity Taxman, but I suspect your hostility to me comes from these two edits here: and . Taxman you need to get over it, as you yourself say of me above "''you are so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems''" perhaps it is not me that needs to do some serious soul searching! ] 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*There was no intended hostility in any of my comments. In fact I'm not sure how you could claim any, and most certainly not remotely in comparison to the level of yours. I was simply pointing out a problem in the most constructive way I could. We can carry this on at someone's talk page instead, but this is not the place. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Regarding my reversion of your edit here personal? personal? nobody's supposed to know I'm talking about!they're defined only by their cowardice! and of course the incidents to which I refer, are all of-wiki. You people can't have it both ways. ] 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Oh well, I've been reverted again, it seems they do know who I'm talking about, and do want it both ways! One rule for them and one for the rest of us it seems. ] 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I find it patently absurd to say that something with Misplaced Pages in it's name is not under the jurisdiction of the same authorities that police Misplaced Pages. If it isn't going to be answerable to these authorities than frankly I don't think it should bear the Misplaced Pages name, and should be usurped, or deleted. However, I'll also say that attacking the '''venue''' of the discourse is also patently absurd. People are people, and the people that are acting up on the admin channel would not be better people without it, I'm sure I can say. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (not incivility but conspiracy is the core)===
:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's outright strange that so many people concentrate on incivility of #wikipedia-en-admins while omitting the real problem. The channel has become a venue where certain current and former admins and (amazingly) assisted by sitting ArbCom members conspire how to give a Misplaced Pages an enema (sic!) and rid it from the editors who oppose them. There is a log from the last year somewhere out there where the self-styled "arbitrator emeritus" discusses with a then (and still now) sitting ArbCom member how to "get rid of Irpen" through a "slow and grudging process" with another ArbCom member (still sitting as well) who professes a chairmanship of the channel watching and proclaiming that "idiots should go". ArbCom has been made aware of that log, they tell me. Still no action. There is plenty of evidence about blocks orchestrated via the channel and I saw no desysopping and instead we concentrate on "incivility". Big deal! I am not worried about incivility. I am by far more worried about teaming up to find an excuse to block Giano (or Irpen or Ghirlandajo) and the names of the conspirators are well known.


== Permissions Removal ==
Anyway, I am going to act at this point. Within days I will submit a case to ArbCom backed up by evidence of the orchestrated blocks. We will see what comes out of that.
{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, please drop the nonsense about incivility. Whoever wants to discuss manners, go to alt.fan.miss-manners or other fora. Time to address admin abuse, violations of existing blocking policies and broken RfAdm. --] 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*Let me note that while I've otherwise withdrawn from this discussion, I support Irpen's intention to seek arbitration and will of course recuse myself from public (and private) discussion of the matter. ] ] 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::*This instant archiving of threads pertaining to these discussions is becoming not only tiresome but deeply irritating, and it is going to stop. I have been asked to clarify elsewhere what I understand by the term conspiracy. As I understand it, a conspiracy is two or more people discussing in a secret place how best to deal with a third party not privy to those discussions. Of course in a place like Misplaced Pages some people i e the Arbcom should have a private place to discuss matters. There is no need for every "quickly come lately liitle admin" to require such a place. I am delighted Mackensen intends to recuse, it is so unseemly when as in the last aborted "Giano case" arbcom members such as J Forrester were forced to recuse after they had already (with strange haste) voted. I very much hope Irpen's case will prove that he was not only unjustly blocked, but that strange things (which the arbcom accept, but we are not allowed to mention) have happened on that channel. I won't comment further on the details of that case, as Thatcher seems to be concerned by ] rules, but of course we all know (don't we Thatcher?) these things don't apply on wiki - so no worries there. It is such a pity we have to have these repeated and damaging cases because the arbcom, whose members are so numerous and clandestine (why is there not a readily available list of those entitled to receive and pass comment on the arbcom mailing list?) fail to deal once and for all with the notorious abuses which have taken place and are taking place in the designated "admin channel." ] 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, but I've already been taken to the woodshed . If the real issue is conspiracy resulting in misuse of admin tools, my thought was to archive this 150kb monstrosity and open a new discussion on the real issue . Obviously you and Irpen disagree . I would like to note in passing that I do not and never have used IRC, and furthermore have a very low opinion after it was reported someone on the regular channel was canvassing people to oppose my RFA. I regret any missteps. ] 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


== ftools is back! ==
===Arbcom mailing list membership disscussion===
:::*It is interesting to note that the ArbCom mailing list's member list is private. There's really no good reason it should be. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*]. ] 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*That's not a mailman members list. With chanops in the admin channel that aren't even admins, I think it warrants a look as to whether there's people in the ArbCom kitchen that aren't cooks, too. Transparency is vital to the health of the wiki. Of course, the actual ''discussions'' should never be made public, as they are made in confidence and often contain confidential information of various sorts (from what I gather), but there is no good reason a list of the members of the list could not be made public. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*Peter, I recently added the usernames of all the subscribers of that list at the link Freply gave above: ]. So a list of the members of that list is now publicly available. ] ] 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*Did you forget Rebecca, or is she not on it? ]] 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::*Rebecca is not currently subscribed to the list. ] ] 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*There are many good reasons. ArbCommers are frequently privy to checkuser information and other sensitive details. ] 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Or did you mean that the member list itself is private? In which case, as FreplySpang indicates, it isn't. ] 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:*28! That is not a committee, it is a parliament, and seemingly a hung one. ] 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A couple thoughts regarding some of the membership listed:
* Essjay - I respect and trust Essjay greatly, but he isn't an Arbitrator, so should he really be on the list?
* Mindspillage - Didn't Kat step down from Arbcom?
I do appreciate the gesture of transparency, though, Paul. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Quoting from that list's information page: ''Subscriptions (allowing posting to and receiving from the mailing list) are limited to current and former Arbitrators, and Jimbo Wales.'' Essjay is an exception. ] ] 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Why is Essjay an exception? ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I could be wrong but it could have to do with one of the many hats Essjay wears. Essjay is a bloody valuable contributor and I can see why he'd be the exception if anyone was going to be. Round my way we always have an exception that proves the rule, and I guess in this instance Essjay is that proof. Hope that helps. Personally, I'd hate to see Misplaced Pages get that far up its own arse it couldn't have exceptions to rules. But I guess I'm a rules are made to be broken kind of person. That's why I have a great fear of writing rules down. I take it there's no chance people are just going to let this whole issue die quietly? (cf stage two of dispute resolution.) ] <small>]</small> 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not contesting it, but I am interested in knowing what the reason is. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::If memory serves, Essjay was added at about the same time he became the first non-arbitrator on en to get checkuser (I'm fairly sure he is still the only one). It was decided since the arbcom mailing list was the primary venue to discuss checkuser related activities, it was logical for him to have access. A secondary benefit to this was that we thought he would provide valuable insight into other committee discussions. ] 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Redux is a checkuser who has never been an arbitrator. ] 08:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers, 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much, Paul, for adding that list. I am still not entirely clear why past members of Arbcom remain on the list. (Nor, indeed, why the address of the list or its page at http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ needs to be obfuscated: a google for "arbcom mailing list" is not all that difficult.) -- ] ] 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Past members are included so they can help us discuss issues, which they sometimes do. This gives us a bit more memory and insight than we would otherwise have. Board members and Jimbo serve the same function. ] 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


== Block appeal for ] ==
::Thanks, Fred. That makes a degree of sense, given the turnover of personnel; on the other hand, I am sure that there are plenty of other editors and admins who could help in discussing issues and who would provide equally useful "memory and insight". Will former Arbitrators stay on the list in perpetuity? Perhaps the same "memory and insight" could be achieved by keep them on the list for a term of, say, a year after they leave Arbcom? The bottom line is that access to the mailing list gives an enhanced level of access to confidential information and to the decision makers. I just does not seem right to me that people who are not on Arbcom should be on the Arbcom mailing list. -- ] ] 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
| status = unblock denied


| result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
===Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (Section break 2)===
}}
A friendly pointer to step two of the ] process. ] <small>]</small> 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
: Well for the past 4 hours it was mostly irrelavent stuff in the channel with some discussion abot currentdate template, DYK and Cplot, im never in the channel when most of the conflect occurs though ] ] 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
:Just a suggestion from someone on the outside of this whole thing, but this discussion may benefit from being on a subpage, with a link from here. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


:I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
===Some facts===
# Giano, Irpen, Bishonen, and Ghirlandajo (among others) have made many enemies.
# Those enemies talk about them behind their backs, including ways to get rid of them.
# Changing or shutting down #wikipedia-en-admins will not change either of the above.
--] 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


:While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
:They don't care who discusses them and how much. The problem is the abusive blocks that violate our policies. What needs done most urgently is punishment for abusive blocks. If the channel continues to run, but abusive blockers get de-adminned, the abuse would stop at once. --] 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


:My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
::Very well, I look forward to an in-depth discussion of abusive blocks in your RFAr. --] 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


:Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Ideogram, this is what makes people say that you're trolling. The dang RFAR's have been launched ''already.'' They are in the ''past tense.'' If you read the first line of this discussion, you'd see that Fred Bauder announces a '''result.''' Do not look forward to new RFAR's, please. I am convinced that ArbCom's solutions will not solve matters, but I hope I'm wrong. If I am, there won't be another RFAR unless people keep poking and acting abusively. Do not ask for all prior arguments to be repeated. They have been, already, at least twice. ] 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::#As noted below, you apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
::#There are a lot of people here who love to repeat themselves, yourself included. If you're going to do that, I'm going to exercise my right to ask you to repeat what's important instead of everything. --] 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::I don't say this lightly, but I am getting close to filing a request at arbitration simply to get this thread to stop. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. ] <small>]</small> 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Frank discussion and debate is important. ] ] 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::I believe he's referring to ] where Irpen announces his intent to launch a new ArbCom soon. --] 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Ideogram: When there's wikidrama, there's always 2 sides, could you provide a list of people on the other side of the fence too? Perhaps we can mediate. --] 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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


== Import request ==
:Cyde Weys appears to have drawn a great deal of hostility, but I am not sure what specifically he could do to help defuse the situation.


Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:From my perspective, Mackensen has already been trying to moderate the situation. The fact that Giano has been attacking him only lowers my opinion of Giano. --] 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>


== Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 ==
===Some conditionals===
Note that these are all if/thens. If the "ifs" aren't right, then the "thens" won't follow.
#If en.admins.irc has non-administrators at en. on it who have been implicated in several cases of bad behavior,
#If the composition of the channel is entirely outside of the scope of ArbCom, as David Gerrard says,
#If James Forrester must agree to any change in ops and composition of the channel and will not do so,
#If the channel's additional ops are the only ones who can police against malicious talk (because the previous ones were participating or approving of it),
#If the channel's "vital functions" are easily replicated by WP:AN/I and the mailing list and e-mail,
#If these other venues are usually superior but never inferior to the IRC,
#'''Then''' we are looking at an unnecessary chat forum that has, built into it, persistent bad behavior which is ''entirely unrelated to Misplaced Pages rules and regulations.''
Therefore, this is the equivalent of a MySpace "Friends" circle. While ArbCom can do nothing about it, we can. Misplaced Pages pages currently give users their access to the channel. We do not allow links to MySpace and Friendster and Facebook "Friends" pages and web forums of that nature even in our articles, and we darn sure don't need to have our namespace pages linking to any. If we remove all links to en.admins.irc, then the current cast of characters can have the isolation and pride that they seem to seek, and we needn't worry what they call their chat room. ] 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Some observations. For ease of replying, I've changed your list to a numbered one. Number three is incorrect, as James agreed to and did appoint additional channel ops, including several sitting arbitrators. Furthermore, op access has been removed from at least one of the users in question, and the others are not active as ops. Number four is misleading; informed of the new rules, every person is responsible for his or her own behavior. Ops are the only people who can kick. A corresponding argument for the encyclopedia would be that only administrators can police malicious talk, because they have the power to block. That would do a disservice to all the conscientious non-administrators on this site. Number five is also incorrect, for reasons that I and others have asserted elsewhere but will do here. Some things cannot be conducted on WP:ANI, or must be conducted faster than e-mail allows. Checkuser and oversight are two of these functions. ORTS complaints are another. The functionaries who perform these tasks have made it clear that they prefer IRC over other mediums. Number six is a question of taste, and I think my answer to five covers it. The official uses of the channel are important and must be protected. ] ] 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
: Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
::Checkuser and oversight communications are important parts of Misplaced Pages and should be fully within the control of either the Misplaced Pages community and its governing bodies (arbcom) or the Wikimedia Foundation or both. It is contradictory and irresponsible to claim it is both seperate and a vital organ. Transparency or responsibility or both. As it is there is a lack of transparency, a lack of accepting responsibility, and a claim that it is important to Misplaced Pages. This should be considered unacceptable. ] 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


{{ivmbox|1=
:::I'm not sure I understand you. If you're asserting that all checkuser and oversight requests must be made publicly then I'm afraid that I must flat-out disagree with you, end of discussion. The checkusers and oversighters themselves are of course subject to the authority of the arbcom, the foundation, and foundation-appointed ombudsmen, and any improper use of those tools would be dealt with severely. ] ] 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The ] are amended by adding the following section:
:::: I am '''not''' "asserting that all checkuser and oversight requests must be made publicly". Transparency or responsibility or both. If Misplaced Pages choses to make a vital Misplaced Pages function nontransparent then it should accept responsibility (and establish whatever mechanisms are appropriate to the task) rather than make claims that it is not responsible. ] 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
::::If I grasp him fully he seems to think that having CU or OS on IRC at all somehow makes them irresponsible and uncontrollable. I'm not a fan of some of the IRC channels surrounding wikipedia, but saying IRC somehow pollutes or corrupts the checkusers os patent nonsense. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
; Coordinating arbitrators
::::: I am '''not''' asserting "that having CU or OS on IRC at all somehow makes them irresponsible and uncontrollable". I am saying that claims that Misplaced Pages can not be responsible for activity that is vital to Misplaced Pages is a nonsense. The excuses for failing to enact mechanisms appropriate to the task are poorly thought out. We don't own it - so move the vital talk to a place we do own. Arbcom says it isn't on Misplaced Pages so they lack jurisdiction - well what of Misplaced Pages Review and our rules about offsite harrassment? ] 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
:::::: Well, first of all, arbcom hasn't said that&ndash;they've indicated a willingness to consider off-wiki behavior when it has an impact on the encyclopedia. Second of all, the channels belong to Wikimedia and are governed by someone responsible to them (which is, yes, a simplification of a complicated situation, but that's how it works out). ] ] 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
===Channel composition questioned===
If every user who logs in to the channel is faced with the message: ''"Allowed topics are only limited to the checkuser, oversight issues as well as other issues that '''require''' confidentiality"'', the whole thing would become harmless instantly.


The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
And, besides, several individuals who are allowed to log in to that channel and even have sysop powers there, namely Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin and NullC should not be anywhere near such confidential discussions as being able to take part in them requires a significant degree of the community trust which these individuals do not enjoy whatsoever. Tony and Kelly being forced to quit all their privileges specifically because of their abusing them should not be on a confidential channel.
* Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
* Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
* Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
* Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
* Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.


A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
I request Mackensen, a sysop appointed to improve the order of the channel, explain to us all while these three users are still in there. Thank you. --] 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Irpen, why are you continuing to discuss the channel when you agree with my statement above that "coordination" is going to happen whether the channel exists or not? Why can't you concentrate on the abusive blocking issue which you assert is what is really important here? --] 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*Let me attempt a response here. There are both official and unofficial uses to the channel. The former are the most important and mainly the ones I've already mentioned. For these to be of any real use, of course, require the presence of trusted users, mainly sysops. ''Being a sysop is not, and never has been, a requirement for entry into that channel.'' The high degree of overlap between the two bodies speaks well of the community. Any time you have a concentration of users there will be discussion; some of it important, some of it not. I don't see much value in restricting the free flow of discussion beyond mandating that nothing untoward or unkind be said. Now, returning to your main point, this is a sticky matter and I would like ask that good faith be assumed as I tackle it. First of all, Tony Sidaway and NullC do not possess "sysop powers" on that channel. The former's were removed, without protest, several days ago. NullC has them because his nick is linked with Mindspillage's; I haven't seen him there in some time.
*Moving on to the second point, IRC access has not been removed because no cause has been given. I'm well aware that members of the community do not trust said individuals to use admin tools, and they no longer have those tools. As they have not abused their access to the channel by demonstrably violating its rules (in particular, those rules governing confidentiality) they have not been removed. Now, if the forthcoming arbitration case were to find that any user, not just those who have been singled out, was responsible for the off-wiki coordination of a bad block, that would of course be a different matter. Yours, ] ] 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:*On no Mackensen! Don't you try and pin everything onto Irpen's forth coming case, while I'm sure that will prove very interesting indeed, your channel was being abused long before that sequence of events. ] 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::*First of all, it isn't *my* channel. Up until a week ago my access there was no higher than anyone else's, and I've not been implicated in any sordid goings-on. Let's not even start down that road. Second of all, I will indeed await the verdict of bodies responsible to the community before acting. While I do not agree that the committee has oversight over the channels, if it was the opinion of the committee than an unethical coordination of blocking or other such abuses had taken place I would remove access, or argue at least for such removal (mind you, I'm but one of several ops), because I trust the arbitrators' judgement in these matters. As I'm apparently not trustworthy on these matters, in your view, I can't begin to imagine why you think I should make such a call myself. ] ] 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:*If they have access to the administrator channel while not being a) adminstrators, or b) trusted members of the overall community, there's a problem. I'll ask again - if those two can have access to the channel, why can't I? --] <small>]</small> 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::*I have no personal objections, provided you're willing to abide by the privacy policy. That's non-negotiable. Let me ask one question: since you're not an administrator, nor involved with clerking, ORTS, or anything like that, why do you want access? ] ] 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Oversight, mostly. As a regular user, I can no longer trust what goes on in there. Regardless, my petition is more because people are in there who don't belong. Either everyone should have the access, or it should be limited to only admins as assumed. --] <small>]</small> 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Everyone with access currently, is either an admin on a wikimedia project and/or was one when they were given access. You Jeff, are neither of these. ] | ] 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Sure, and I can accept that. However, if the channel is ''for administrators'', non-admins should not have access. Just because someone couldn't be bothered to remove them from the channel when they were removed here is no reason to keep them around. --] <small>]</small> 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::The only former admins with access currently are ones who gave up admin tools volunatarily. Under those circumstances, I don't think they should be removed from the channel. I suspect you will disagree, but frankly their admin experience is just as valuable a resource as anyone else's. ] | ] 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Given who they are and the circumstances surrounding their "voluntary" demotion, I disagree. Someone else I might not, but if you think many of us lower beings consider Tony or Kelly's experience to be a valuable resource, well... --] <small>]</small> 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If you have a problem with a specific person, take it to Arbcom. I however, am speaking in generalities and would like you to kindly refrain from putting names in my mouth. I answered your question in a fair and civil manner, so I'm done here. ] | ] 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute. You have seen the very same logs mailed to ArbCom since you are at the ArbCom mailing list. And from those logs you don't see that "unethical coordination of blocking or other such abuses had taken place" yet? The additional ArbCom case should not have been necessary and I am forced to write it only because our ArbCom seems not decisive (or lazy) or wants to wash its hands off, I don't know. But ''you'' have seen the logs. Don't you see the coordination in them? --] 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Another point, I don't understand NullC's nicj being "linked" to anyone else's as an excuse for anything. Mindspillage is respected by many (myself included) despite I disagreed with her at times. She can log in all right with her own nick. NullC is not an admin, he is not a "trusted member of the community". Why is he there?
:(irpen)
::NullC is an admin on Commons. I do not support his using an identity linked to Mindspillage's, but NullC is not the only admin on Commons (who is not him or herself an admin on en:wp) that has access to #wikipedia-en-admins. There are others. I support that and think it is appropriate. There have been instances when action on commons was required, and having someone there that was an admin on commons was beneficial. Some of the people who were granted access on the basis of being admins on commons have subsequently become admins on en:wp but that's besides the point. Commons admins are as trustworthy as en:wp admins and it is appropriate that they have access as well, in my view. I won't address the rest. ++]: ]/] 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:(irpen continues..)
:Finally, as far as Kelly goes, I understand from your message that NotACow is not only allowed to log in but she is still a sysop. I am familiar with at least two occasions of the checkuser misuse by this individual (and perhaps there were more). Moreover, her ArbCom voting showed convincingly that the user is one of the ''least'' trusted by the editor's community. What's more? Her personal blog is full of attacks on Misplaced Pages users. Why is she allowd to log in? And to be a sysop too? We are all looking forward to find out. --] 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*I agree with Badlydrawnjeff: Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin are neither a) adminstrators, nor b) trusted members of the overall community. They should have their access completely removed. ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

===Channel composition questioned - continued===

::I'll address all points here. Please bear with me. Yes, I've seen the logs that arbcom has seen; I emailed several myself. I've reviewed them and offered commentary. I'm not convinced that coordination took place. I'm not calling anyone a liar; I'm simply stating that in my considered opinion I don't think that's what happen. I see ill-considered and hasty actions, but I don't see malice. That's another reason for you to wait for arbcom; they might well see things differently.
::NullC is a commons admin and has some kind of developer access. If he's not a trusted member of community then this is news to me. I'm aware that his kicking of Bishonen from the channel is highly controversial but as her access was restored I see no lasting damage. I would prefer that Greg not exercise ops in the future.
::I haven't seen Kelly Martin log in for well over a week at this point. Her blog is no more malicious than other user's blogs (whom I'll not name in the interest of kindness) but that's no excuse for past harm done. If there have been actual concrete checkuser violations they were not brought to my attention so I can't comment on them. As she's no longer a checkuser I'm not concerned about any future damage. She hasn't been removed because no one has seen fit to. ] ] 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Do you have access to do so? Can you see fit to do so with a formal complaint? Is this formal enough, or do you prefer a different format? --] <small>]</small> 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*This is all very odd, only a few days ago Mackensen was furious when I said check user abuses took place, apparently I had no honnour for even daring to suggest such things were done by members of the sacred channel - what's changed? ] 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*If you'll read the part where I said I hadn't heard about them, it might help you out. Note also that I took your comments as a general allegation since you didn't name names. Context is everything. ] ] 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*''name names'' -- When the arbcom acknowledged misbehavior in this channel they didn't identify who the perps were - why? --] 19:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*Go ask the arbcom. ] ] 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::*Ok. <br>ARBCOM, who engaged in any of the ''Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel''? --] 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Is that an appology I'm hearing there Mackensen? Seems I'm not so wrong after all doesn't it? ] 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*I apologize for not being omniscient. You didn't substantiate your allegations, stating only that given what else went on in there it wouldn't surprise, or words to that effect. For that matter, the allegations still haven't been substantiated, and until I'm told differently by someone in the know, I will continue to call them just that. ] ] 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Mackensen, do I read it that the widely known cases of checkuser misuse by Kelly are not known to you? --] 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*Maybe I'm the last person on the project to know. No one sends me memos about these things. No, I'm not aware of these widely known abuses. I'm aware of allegations, to be sure, but I've never seen them substantiated. ] ] 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh Mackensen, how much more of all this do you think peole are going to beleive. Is any editor's true identity safe in that bloody channel? Yes or No? ] 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Checkuser and IRC are two different things. IRC users should get a ] to avoid disclosing their IP address. --] 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me brief you then, Mackensen, about ''some''. is one most widely known one that I found accidentally. I was merely prompted by ]. Much more can be found by just googling, btw. If you need more evidence, just ask. --] 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*I was familiar with that conversation, yes. I've seen it posted before. If she was removed over it then it's news to me, and I think I would have heard. ] ] 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*As I understand it, checkuser can be used on reasonable suspicion that someone is using a sockpuppet to damage wikipedia (see ])... it's never required formally going through ]. --] 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there an indication in ''that'' conversation that there was such a reasonable suspicion? --] 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:As a fragment of conversation, it doesn't seem like Kelly's original suspicions were the subject of discussion. Has there been any other discussion or evidence which credibly suggests that Kelly acted inappropriatly ''outside of that log?'' Was a case filed with the Obudsman? Was there an outcome posted anywhere? --] 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*There was a concern that the account had been compromised, apparently. That's happened before, by the way, like when HolyRomanEmperor "died." Checkuser evidence was used to figure out what the hell was actually going on. ] ] 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, please be serious. --] 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*No, I think I'll just shoot my mouth off for laughs. I like nothing better than taking hits for the arbitration committee and having my credibility, commitment, and heavens knows what else questioned on a daily basis. I'm having an absolute blast out here. ] ] 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to mean that you seriously believe that in that particular instance Kelly thought that the account in question has been compromised and that's why she ran a checkuser on one of the most well-known editors in this community? --] 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:I suggest it as a possibility. How am I, or anyone, supposed to deduce from that log why the checkuser was run? You've suggested one possibility, I've suggested another. Thanks for the support, ] ] 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do you seriously believe in what you are suggesting being really the case? Or are you just hypothesizing here? --] 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:I suggest it as a highly plausible alternative. Let's say you're right: what benefit would a checkuser derive in this instance? ] ] 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Oh, I can think of countless much more plausible reasons. I can't look inside Kelly's head to know which one of them applied in this case. I have my own version but I would rather not write it on the public page. Whatever it is, as our ] policy wisely says, '''" guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."''' --] 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::: Do you have ''any'' evidence to justify your apparent wholesale abandonment of good faith in the case of Kelly Martin? --] 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::You must be joking, Tony. Aren't you? --] 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::: You know I'm not. I find your behavior here ''very'' far from a laughing matter. --] 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*I ask that all editors think carefully before making serious accusations of abuse of Misplaced Pages powers. --] 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Thanks for that Tony - we've thought. Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page. We've all heard quite enough from you to last a lifetime. ] 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*''Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page.'' You first.
:::*''We've all heard quite enough from you to last a lifetime.'' "We"? Are you royalty? --] | ] 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::What, Giano write a page? Something like, say, ], you mean? Or ]? What a good idea. Perhaps some others would like to emulate him and add some decent content. -- ] ] 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::], Calton... The most commonly repeated accusation against Giano (an unfair one, IMO, but everybody who's heard the rumours knows better, no doubt) runs something like "Just because you write those admittedly brilliant Featured articles all the time, it doesn't mean you get to be rude to people!" It's a refreshing novelty to see somebody instead tell him to "go and do something useful for once like write a page." If you wish to become better informed about his contributions, ] might be a place to start. And yes, "We all" is how crowned heads usually refer to themselves. ] | ] 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
::::::My comment did not, does not, have never been, and are not intended in the slightest to be dependent on whatever contributions Giano has or hasn't made in the past: I don't know what they are and I DON'T CARE. They're dependent on his disruptive, bad-faith, and complete-waste-of-time bollocks he's been inflicting on this page for the last umpteen days RIGHT NOW. I don't give a rat's ass if he's spend his time before this walking on water: he's being a disruptive waste of time RIGHT NOW, and his past contributions are not nor should be a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for being a disruptive waste of time RIGHT NOW. Is that clear, or do I require butcher paper and crayons to draw a picture? --] | ] 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I'm trying to read through the invective here. (caps is a good clue that people are getting steamed :-)). Aloan is talking about articles made ''today'', y'know ;-) . --] 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::How many articles someone has written is not relevant. Giano et. al. love to assert how admins have no standing higher than other users. When pushed, they might grudgingly give them equal status. But comments like "Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page" (which we have seen before) indicate that Giano et. al. clearly consider people who write articles (i.e. themselves) to be superior to anyone who helps out the encyclopedia in any other way. --] 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with Tony, and propose that the same apply to all secret, invitation only places with no accountability - where the accused never get the chance to defend themselves, or even hear the charges. --] 21:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Absolutely. It must apply everywhere and at all times. I would warn Duk, however, that his recent statements are beginning to look like veiled accusations. --] 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, I think I see what you mean now. I made a few comments directed to you. I did '''not''' mean to imply that you've done anything wrong. Sorry if I gave that impression. --] 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I am begining to suspect that Tony is trying emulate a small bread product preceded by his first initial.(5) -- ] ] 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::It's amazing that you keep digging long after the game is up. Can you just give it up. ] ] 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I have only one thing to say to all those who are still at this debate.... turnip. turnip, Turnip TURNIP, ''turnip'' '''TURNIP''' T-U-R-N-I-P.--]<sup>g</sup> 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus: I have said several times that any and all problems with IRC will be fixed if the discussions will be logged and publicly available. Simple and elegant solution, if I may say so.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*Reply to Tony: ] - ] - ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

===#wikipedia-en-functionaries opened===
Well, since no one took me up on it I've made my own fork. #wikipedia-en-functionaries now exists as a place for discussion of the administration of the English wikipedia. Access is open to those interested in the matter. It isn't meant as a social channel, and it is asked that banter be kept to a minimum. Ask me or {{user0|Interiot}} for access. Regards, ] ] 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Not a bad idea. Do we have a #wikipedia-en-cabal yet? --] <small>]</small> 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think so, but I've never been there, so obviously it's a front! ] ] 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::The channel isn't access-controlled in order to form a cabal, it's access-controlled to encourage discussion to center on helping out wikipedia, and discourage banter. And the channel aims to have a more diverse range of people than #wikipedia-en-admins, so it's potentially less cabalist anyway. --] 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Are people who aren't sysops allowed? By the way, for anyone curious, this whole discussion has reached 196,000 characters. ] 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, anyone who will use the channel for discussion that improves the encyclopedia, and keeps most banter elsewhere, is welcome. --] 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Anyone think it's time to call up his IP or file a ] report? I'm not sure how to go about this, and I don't know his IP range. But this is getting entirely out of hand. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:There is already an investigation going against his IP there... a second... the one under the ''68.30.65.203'' heading. -- ] 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He has recently used:
* 24.148.7.123
* 64.241.37.140
* 66.73.80.206
* 66.149.74.142
* 67.167.7.81
* 67.167.7.187
* 68.30.156.41
* 75.22.229.188
* 75.57.102.247

I suggest we start gathering a definitive collection, to be followed with ISP complaints and range blocking. ] 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:Add:
*68.251.35.198
:To that list. --]] 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::I have seen a cplot ip blocked for a month. Since we blocked the ips for a week and did not work, I suggest extending to one month, until the investigation is finished. -- ] 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::My theory about Cplot, although probably flawed, is that Cplot is probably multiple people using different IPs. And yes, a ] report will probably help. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course, you can't have a single person with so varied internet accounts. -- ] 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think that Sunstar means that it is being used as a ], possibly with access gained by the posting of the name and password to something like a forum or BBS, to be manipulated by multiple users to game the system. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Oh, gotcha. I suggest keeping a bot deleting posts that are over 60kb automatically :-) -- ] 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

* They'd have to be ''really'' dedicated to carry out this much of an attack on Misplaced Pages. BTW, I found a "parody" of Misplaced Pages, which is also called Misplaced Pages (confusingly enough), maybe Cplot can take his stuff there?? --]<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to knock on ]'s door and tell them to tell this guy to put a sock in it. —<b><font color="#00FFFF">]</font>] (])</b> 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::This may be a ], per Teke's suggestion above. I'm sure some forum will probably have a thread somewhere on this. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::I just searched google for the terms "government" and "cplot" and came up with nothing but many questionable sites syndicating wiki content (including user talk) in order to increase their page rank. I also came across a Harvard law site with a involving a user called "thewaythingswork" which seemed to digress onto Cplot. Either there's nothing out there, or I need to refine my search terms. Could a proxy service be responsible for the numerous IP's? ] 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Probably some ], if that's what Cplot's using... --]<sup>]</sup> 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Is that possible? The IPs resolve to major commercial ISPs. ] 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but to say specifically how might offer ideas if it's not the case. It's not a particularly common thing to see from average internet users, but it is possible.For example, my IP is registered to PlusNet (and yes, it's static), but I could still be running a proxy on a second machine for others to connect through. ] 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I always figured it was a bunch of guys from the same area working together, given the various Chicago ISPs listed in the suspected sock list. I don't really have any experience with this kind of thing, though. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From a nontechnical angle my hunch is it's one person. A group of people would manifest a variety of writing styles. Yes, this means prolific and dedicated effort from one individual, but some irrational people are prolific and dedicated. This person ignored my repeated offers at Village Pump to accept evidence via e-mail and conduct an independent investigation. So while the emperor has no clothes, it's also human nature for the emperor to insist he's wearing fine duds while the crowd giggles. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:At one point, I began thinking they were common people who had been cheated by Cplot to post those comments there. However, noticing how the sockpuppets try to insert the text in as many sections as possible reflects careful planning. Suppose Misplaced Pages asked for confirmation whenever it detects more than XXkb of text is being inserted at the same time (a copyvio warning, in example), wouldn't that stop him from doing this automatically and also help catch some copyvio infringements, especially when ] is down? -- ] 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::So the question, is, now, would anybody like to call up SBC and give them the nastygram? (that's me honesetly asking for volunteers). We will need some checkuser information from Mackensen that we can email to SBC. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked an IP last night who was either Cplot or a Cplot wannabe which resolved to the University of Virginia computer lab. ]|] 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm quite sure there are Cplot imitators out there. Cplot himself uses a few different ISPs. I'm willing to discuss via e-mail, but not here. --] <small>(])</small> 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the IPs that originate from Chicago should be the ones that are targeted in an abuse report? :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another IP used today by Cplot: {{IPvandal|24.14.241.94}}.--]] 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Several more used today:
* 68.29.19.14
* 70.8.72.109
* 75.22.229.188
* 24.148.87.100
* 75.3.20.158
* 24.148.64.151
Range blocked for 6 months. ] 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== WikiPrograms that are not useful ==

Well, it appears to be the month for reforming or deprecating projects that have gotten out of hand (doesn't ] call for a regular pruning of process?) I invite people to take a look at ] and ]. Both purport to be pages that help new users towards overall constructive behavior, and eventually adminship. '''However''', both have gotten out of hand. They now steer people towards socially acceptable behavior as judged by the alleged RFA crowd. Thus, they reenforce editcountitis, as well as all sorts of arbitrary criteria like "an admin candidate must put X amount of work in AFD/RC patrol/AIV/whatever". This is certainly not good for the encyclopedia. Comments please on how to deal with this. ] 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:I am inclined to suggest we MFD them (see my comments on ] and ], but Editor review '''''used''''' to be a useful aid to newer editors before being subverted (perverted?) into its current use as a tool to shape user's edit counts so they perfectly fit the RFA hole, so I am reluctant to see it just cast asunder. Lose the school, redefine the aims of Editor Review. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::Personally (having spent a good time doing editor reviews), I agree with Proto that ER used to be useful. While in the beginning most asked for counsel about how they handled a particular situation, what they could do to complement their current self, and why determined areas were useful. Nowadays, most ask advice about how to become admins. I am not sure, but "I think" it is because now the RFA page advertises it. While many would have posted their RFA, now they read the line that says ''If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try an editor review first.'' and ask the same in the editor review. Maybe, and it is a big maybe, if we change that line to ''If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try to get advice at Admin coaching'' then ER would go back to what it used to be. -- ] 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Admin school has serious issues, and I'm not sure they can be "fixed" - which would render ReyBrujo's well reasoned suggestion ineffective. An Mfd may be the solution; whether an Esperanza solution is adopted or not, the attention and input would be beneficial. I concur with Proto that Editor review has the potential to be a useful tool, but I'd like to hear ideas on how to redefine it effectively. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::We can't say "Don't ask about becoming an administrator", can we? We can't put a minimum threshold (5,000 edits or over), can we? We can't remove editor reviews that ask whether the subject would pass a RFA at this time, can we? Well, what we can is to turn the "unfriendly" switch to the maximum, don't praise users but criticize them, so hard that they will think twice before asking for another editor review or RFA. "I want to be an administrator, what do you think?" "With only 7 Misplaced Pages namespace edits? Sure, post your application on ]." But then, we would be biting them. No, as of right now, I don't have any idea about how to improve it. -- ] 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer, I've just signed up for editor review because I'd like to be a better editor. I've made a specific request for advice in my submission. If people use it to fit RfA better, why not? Then again, if they use it to improve themselves, why not? What's the big deal. No need to delete it. The biggest problem I see with it is lack of participation from the experienced users, actually reviewing us. It takes a certain amount of guts to put oneself in the stocks... it's a bit disconcerting when few people can be bothered to throw tomatoes. --] 13:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
*The point is that the ''intent'' of the page is good (indeed, encouraging people to be better editors is obviously a good thing) but what the page ''actually does'' is not good (in that it actually encourages people to mold themselves to arbitrary standards that are allegedly but not really required to pass RFA). In that, it is gaming the system: it's going by the letter of the (perceived) rules rather than the spirit. ] 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:My own opinion of admin school is that it's basically telling people what to say at RFA. Nothing wrong with that if the person in question really ''should'' be an admin, but I think it's too easy to abuse to push unsuitable people through RFA and to trick, so to speak, the RFA voters. I would certainly vote delete at MFD. Editor review I think is O.K, if only as a way of preventing RFAs that are never going to pass in a million years. And it is useful, on occasion. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::Per Moreschi, I'd keep ER if only to avoid giving Bureaucrats even more work. ] 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I have seen a fair few editor reviews that go like "I'm about to run at RFA tomorrow!!! Any last-minute tips????" - followed by "You're a complete newbie. You haven't got a hope in hell at RFA, and you need to seriously rethink your attitude towards adminship". That sort of thing is useful, I think, to avoid clueless newbie RFAs. But admin coaching sucks. Shall I wheel out my fellow deletionist cabalists to nom the admin coaching MFD, or does someone else want to have a turn? ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Per baby/bathwater issues, I've not experienced admin coaching, but the arguments against editor review don't, erm, hold water. --] 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that the concept of improving as an editor (and possibly being more suited to being an admin) is becoming too focused on editor review and the concept of an admin school. There are many different ways of improving as a Misplaced Pages editor. Recently I tried to list some of the more interactive methods at ]. Maybe that would be a good link to have in the ''"If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try ... first."'' bit? i.e ''"If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try one of the options at ] first."'' Though I've always been more in favour of the concept of learning by yourself, and improving by experience. Indeed, I was recently complimented on this quote:
<blockquote>
''"Enculturation really just needs people to talk more and demonstrate how they do things (rather than just doing them). Takes certain types of people to be role models. Actually following someone's edits, or meeting in person and watching how they do things, can be very instructive."'' (Carcharoth)
</blockquote> </blockquote>
}}
My point is that there are many ways to learn. If we work to diversify the options, that might help any one area degrading and becoming unacceptable.

Right, now I'm off to post this in the other two threads on this matter. Please focus this thread on specific things, um to do with the Administrators noticeboard? Why the hell is this thread on this noticeboard anyway? <sigh> Gathering admin views on what to do with admin coaching and editor review? Fair enough, but this thread really needs to be focused and directed towards the places where the discussion should ''really'' be happening (and that is also an apology for lengthening the thread). Probably best to close this thread and direct discussion to ] and ]. And if there is an umbrella MfD nomination, can '''all''' the pages be listed this time, and the post-closing actions be planned a little bit beforehand? ] 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:If it were up to me, it would say, "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, don't." -- ] 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:My complaint about ER is that it seems to be a den of back scratching. Despite not being a very active project, I am constantly seeing talkpage notes like, 'Man, thanks for the props on my ER; I'll be sure to reciprocate'. It doesn't inspire confidence in the process. ] 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
=== Section break 1: crunch the numbers ===

Yes, I worry about the quality of some ] nominations that succeed. Part of what it takes to be an administrator just can't be taught: it's about temperament and judgement. I waited until I had 9000 edits, three featured pages, and shared authorship of a guideline before I thought I was ready. Yet there just ] to keep this site running if we set the bar that high. ] and admin school have their flaws. Yet I've been telling myself lately I ought to spend more time over there because we have to make a priority of ensuring that the growth of the administrative pool keeps pace with the growth of the project. If this is accurate we've got over 3 million registered accounts Misplaced Pages.en and 1090 administrators total (including inactive ones). There are systemic issues and long term trends at work here and we're kidding ourselves if we don't address them. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
*Misplaced Pages.en has a sysop to user ratio of 1:2774, which is the third lowest ratio among all Misplaced Pages languages.
*That ratio has fallen steadily at this project for two years.
<font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::What about the active admins to active user ratio? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Heh, I'm the ''writer'' - most of you guys are the techies. It amazes me that you don't already have bots to track this and that I'm the one raising the issue. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Possibly if there's a feeling we need more admin's, people would like to run their eye down the list at ] and discuss nomination with anyone who jumps out as a likely candidate. Maybe we could all nominate one candidate each? ] <small>]</small> 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the discussions will likely move elsewhere, I'd like to add a couple of things about ] (I am not much familiar with Editor Review). Admin Coaching clearly states, and has always stated, that it is not for the purpose of teaching someone how to do well in an RfA, or to teach someone what is needed to pass an RfA. It is about learning the skills that administrators use, so that when/if an editor does become an administrator, they are well prepared to use their new tools. How many of us felt nervous to delete our first page of nonsense, block our first vandalizing user, or protect our first page undergoing an edit war? Admin coaching helps editors understand the tools of administrators, and to learn their usage. Those editors undergoing admin coaching are able to practice deciding if something is appropriate to be deleted under the CSD, to learn when to and when not to protect a page, and to become confident and deciding what is vandalism and what is not. These skills mean that if an editor goes through an RfA and is successful, they will be well-versed in the tools they have acquired, and will be able to benefit the encyclopedia by using them in the best fashion possible. -- ] 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::Well, I for one would like real action and not cheap talk. The way to get ready for admin, and an effective admin, is to do RC or CVU and you will know how to deal with the vandals and dubious material. And to get involved in image tagging. Talking about it doesn't prove anything, my RfA participation works upon "]", not because somebody did a theory "Q&A answer" - I think that for anybody who even played sport or music at an amateur or school level, their coach or teacher would have said that what you gain in 15 minutes of actual playing time on the field or stage, can't be substituted for lots of practice. Personally, as soon as Essjay tweaked my access, I slaughtered about 50 pieces of rubbish in the first two or three hours . A lot of people don't have any proven skill in the mopwork and pass simply by giving the "politically correct" answers and then don't use them much anyway. In any case, if they get too smooth sounding without actually having done anything, I am likely to ignore their RfA and perhaps even oppose it. I would have to say that no practical skill improvement is gained from AC from observing the coaches, only PC, PR and toilet training. ''']''' (]) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Blnguyen, part of the coach's responsibility is to say, "go do this." It's not just about preaching to a user. ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oooh er, Natalya, I'm not sure. The damn thing even has a disclaimer: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your coach. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place." Either this needs serious rewording or it does make it sound as though the whole point is to get you through RFA, as does language like "Admin Coaching is a program for people who would like the special attention that only one-on-one coaching can provide" - and the purpose of the coaching is to get you through RFA, eh? I remember looking at ] - I mean, at one point, semi-ironically, Glen says "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts". Sorry, but even as a joke, your RFA thoughts should be your real thoughts! My fingers are itching over the MFD button, cause at RFA ''I don't want a product, I want the real deal''. ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem with fishing through the high edit count list is that a lot of the people who are on it don't wan't adminship or have failed nominations - or haven't tried because they know nomination wouldn't succeed. It's the people who registered last July and who raised a couple of pages to ] and are becoming active in one of the WikiProjects that we should look at, but mostly they aren't on our radar yet. So a couple of people have set up places where they can go. I applaud that. ''We'' need to be there too and honestly tell some of them they're good editors but maybe not cut out for this and foster the ones who seem to have the right stuff. If these efforts are undermanned - and a lot of things are undermanned because sysops are scarce - then of course they don't work so well. Now I'll put my money where my mouth is (or where my typing fingers are) and go follow my own advice. I welcome others to join me. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::I agree that there should be no difference; hearing "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts" makes me want to cringe. However, in my opinion there is still much potential, as long as the purpose of it is made clear to all participating. Is it bad to prepare people who may become administrators for the tasks they will have to perform? It doesn't seem so. -- ] 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:RFA is so broken that experienced editors are scared to go near it until they're 100% sure they'll pass. This, in effect, delays potential admins for several months. I cite Newyorkbrad's current RfA as a primary example, and I can think of one or two other people who are as well. ] 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::You mean the Newyorkbrad RfA that is passing with 99% support? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I think his point was that Nyb should have been nominated months ago. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::That is true though, RfA is a very scary procedure to go through, because, if you fail, you are probably going to have to wait about 3 months before trying again. RfA is 'broken' only because there are too many people. RfA is more effective when the 'voters' actually know what the person they are 'voting' on's character is from personal experience, rather then using edit count and other arbitrary factors to try and guess. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I sometimes wonder if it would offer some real insight if it were possible to run a small experiment. Simply pick a pre-rfa candidate about to "run the gauntlet", (secretly, so as not to affect the outcome) collect opinions from existing admins on whether or not the candidate should pass if RfA were running perfectly and as it should ''ideally'' be (or perhaps based on ] alone rather than any arbitary criteria), and then compare that with the actual result. Maybe even repeat it a few times. The results may then be evidence either of a problem, or of the lack of a problem. I'm not saying that it could or should be done. I have no opinion there. It's just an idea I've thought on a few times. ] 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I think admin coaching, etc. shouldn't be about the RFA but about all that comes afterward, as in what the tools are for and what sort of stresses go with them and whether the kind of participation someone wants to do would really be helped by that - and getting to know the site well enough that they'll use the tools correctly. If they've learned Misplaced Pages well enough that they're ready for adminship and they've got the right temperament for this, then RFA shouldn't be a problem. It's not the admissions board at Harvard. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Exactly. They will pass RfA when they are ready, and now they'll be ready for what comes afterward. -- ] 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* See, I have a problem with the whole concept of admin coaching. Mentoring, yes, but being an admin is not something one should aspire to and work towards, it's something that should be suggested by others based on how they see you working within the project. Self-noms based on technical needs (template Wikignomes and so on) are fine, but "make me a sysop, I'll block vandals and delete everything emanating from ]" is a seriously bad rationale. Anyone who actively sets out to be an admin may not be here to build a great encyclopaedia. Plus they are stupid: the pay sucks and you get abuse from all quarters. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::I'd rather turn admin coaching into something positive then. Somewhere along the line each of us sysops learned what adminship is about and decided that was where we want to be, but the site isn't particularly user-friendly for editors who are interested in exploring that option. Rather than proceeding from a presumption that an editor ought to get sysopped and showing them how to jump through certain hoops, let's make it a place where they can genuinely learn what we do and see whether this is the right fit for their styles. Plenty of good editors are better off writing articles. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Well, suggestions are always welcome... ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ouch! Durova, that hurts! Surely the first priority of all of us, non-admins and admins alike, should be just that - writing articles? ] and ], after all. ] <sup> ]</sup> 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
: Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that ''everyone'' is here to do that. ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Bishzilla have way better PC, PR and toilet training than that Newyorkbrad, grrr! Admin school diploma! Personal coach! Dispute resolution skills! Excellent edit summary usage. '''Not''' ripping off users' heads (that was newbie mistake!). Have not eaten user since ]! Will apologize posthumously to Bastique if required, will not destroy Tokyo! Give tools! Nom Zilla for adminship now or she show you unilateral! ] | ] 06:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
:Eeeeeps! Here: ]. Remember to fill out the questions and accept the nomination before posting! &mdash;] (]) 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*You know what? I am a new user and I agree that both those stupid programs should be deleted post-haste!! ] 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== 1 week block on ] ==

Today I extended a 24 hour block against this editor into a 1 week block. The situation is sensitive for several reasons and I would like to get some feedback.
*The blocked editor is the successful defendant in a case that went before the California state supreme court.
*The blocked editor alleges that ], another editor in her Misplaced Pages dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.
*Fyslee denies that this is true. He says he used to volunteer for that person's website and stopped volunteering a while ago.
*], Ilena's informal mentor, has been a heartfelt advocate for her. Unfortunately that advocacy, in my opinion, has become so counterproductive that I left a request at his user talk to change his approach or recuse himself.
*Ilena's post that prompted the block extension included a link to her personal website in which she identified Fyslee by his real world name. I consider that post to justify the block extension on several grounds - this element is particularly troubling.

There are two bright spots here. First, no one appears to have crossed the line into a blockable legal threat. Second, Fyslee has been cooperative about retracting objectionable statements when requested and generally responding well to feedback. ] and its tangled archive are relevant reading for this.

Have I handled this appropriately? I welcome suggestions. This is a tough nut to crack. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:People giving RL identities of editors (whether these are in fact the correct RL identity or not) actually on wikipedia, or linking from wikipedia to that information, can be blocked indefinitely if it is considered that they will repeat the action. I trust the link has been deleted. It has been considered that what is posted on external websites is outside our jurisdiction, as we're not here to police the internet. ] 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. Bannable offense from someone who has been here to continue an offsite war and has contributed nothing of value to the project. ] 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:I just want to comment -- if people are going to go around changing ilena's text on talk pages, please do so by changing it to something like (personal attack removed) or (link to attack site removed) and sign, rather than altering someone's signed message to say something different with no indication of a change. Thanks! ] ] 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Good call. There were so many issues floating around at once that I didn't cover that one, other than to encourage strikethroughs. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::: I have had some exchanges with Fyslee over this, although he is clearly insulted and annoyed by some of Ilena's abuse he does seem to be making an honest effort to resolve the conflict, fair play. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

=== Indef block for this? ===
I guess I should give the question its section. I understand the limits of Misplaced Pages sysop authority and understand this is bannable. Due to the surrounding fireworks I didn't want to be the sole admin to make that call so I gave a comfortable margin for decision making. My opinion is that a Usenet veteran who carries all the baggage that implies and hasn't adjusted to this site in over half a year has already been handled with kid gloves far too long. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Rather unfortunate. Clearly a talented person and could be a valuable contributor. But, it's just not that hard to get along. If not an indef block, how about a quickly escalating one? Looking through her talk page it doesn't seem she makes much effort to get along, nor understands the give and take of a collaborative site. Assuming that continues and she demonstrates no desire to change that by discussion on her talk page, then perhaps go with the indef block before the week is up. Linking to an editor's real name is unacceptable, so the one week block to sort it out is a good call. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Taxman. It would be more fair to warn her of a possible indefinite block and give her a chance to rectify the situation. I also agree that the linking to a real name has to stop. ] 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I notified her of the ] thread when it opened. I've updated to state that banning is under discussion and invited her to comment or take conciliatory steps. Yesterday I gave her a link to ] so she's been made aware that a community ban is a possibility. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::::We don't need to be yet another battleground in her ongoing drama. There are other better places. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps we could be a bit kinder than the above comment? At least giver her an opportunity to understand what the problem is and what the consequence will be if she doesn't rectify it.

I do not see that she has been here a year and a half - I looked at her contrib. and it looks like she has been here since July 06. So about 6 months. Maybe suggest she try editing some different articles. And Durova's invitation seems like a good way forward.] 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

: "over half a year" was the wording above. She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here, but she is definitely not a newbie, unknowing about how to make a diff, how to provide evidence, or how to make severe enough accusations about others that it got her sued for libel. The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected. (The original publisher in this case is now awaiting an upcoming trial. Original publishers are not protected.) -- ] 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::You are correct. I misread it. Thank you for pointing this out.] 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't support an immediate indefinite block, even though I am currently the primary target of her accusations here. The suggestion of a "quickly escalating one" sounds good, with an increase in increments from the current one to a month, then to six months. After that an indefinite block or permanent block, considering the severity of the offenses, and in the light of the fact that likely no other user has ever gotten away with so much for so long after so many warnings. -- ] 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block at this stage, much less a ban. I encroached on this territory when trying to mediate ] and I don't think either side has behaved very well. Ilena's bad behaviour has been well documented, however, Fyslee, for his part, has editorialised about Ilena, accused her of "hate speech", posted links to a blog that attacks her and generally provoked and aggravated the situation. He didn't even try to pretend the blog was posted for any constructive purpose but acknowledged he was posting it for other editors' "enlightenment and enjoyment".
The edits identifying Fyslee should be oversighted but if Ilena indicates that she understands posting other editor's possible real life identities is completely unacceptable and may result in an indefinite block, and if she promises not to do it again and agrees to follow policy, I think she should be allowed to return when the current block expires. I hope all parties become willing to participate in ] that Peter has started up and that they understand that we are not looking for a slanted or sanitised article but an accurate and unbiased one. ''']''' 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Sarah, this is a much broader issue than a content dispute on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It includes many other barrett related pages. In its current name this mediation request makes little sense. Especially since the disputes on the Barrett v. Rosenthal article are cleared up. Why not an RfC or does everyone seem to think these are too negative? It seems like a much better forum for such a discussion. ] ] 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Hey David. I do agree that the problem is far more widespread than just ]. In fact, it was actually on the talk page of ] that I first encountered them, having stumbled across from ]. I had a poke around and also discovered them bickering at ]. I would favour giving mediation a go first and failing that, I would support an RFC. I just haven't seen many RfCs actually achieve anything. They seem to generate a lot of words, but in the end they just sort of die off without any conclusion and everyone goes back to where they were when it started. Maybe I just haven't been involved in the right ones, I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the mediation request as it stands, but it can be renamed and refactored to include a far broader and more appropriate scope. ''']''' 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:This user's behaviour is deplorable on occasion, but as Sarah mentions, by the same token so has Fyslee on occasion also. Provocation is a bad thing on Misplaced Pages, especially when dealing with a touchy sitatuion like this.
:I think that both users, but esp. Ilena, should be told in black-and-white that if they do this sort of higher-end naughtiness, for want of a better word, again - ie. linking to attack blogs<sup>, Arbitration Committee in /MONGO, October 2006</sup>, speculation about real life identities<sup>, ''Harassment'' guideline, January 2007</sup> ''et al'' - they will be blocked for an appropriate period of time, even up to indefinite. It is '''then''' that discussion about a community ban may be appropriate. But for now, I feel it is premature.
:Like Sarah above, I wait with great anticipation of the end results of ]. If all goes well, and these users sort out their differences and problems, then all well and good. If it descends back into chaos and nuisance conduct, then the time may be right. But I'm not comfortable with blocking/banning this user right now, given that this situation is a two-way dispute which may be resolved. Play it by ear, I say. Cheers, ''']''' 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed, I don't want to make it sound like I'm giving ] a free ride here. The provocation has got to stop. Fyslee, if we don't see significant improvement in your handling of the situation, you're just as likely to be sanctioned. Both of you need to stop, tone down the rhetoric and attacks, and work with the facts. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Everyone would say I'm "for" Ilena, but Taxman said exactly what I've been saying all along. Ilena's behaviour is poor, and is regrettable, but so is Fyslee's, and we should not be giving him a free ticket. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Which is the very reason several people have been suggesting an RfC. Such a forum offers an opportunity to look at both sides as well as a chance to mentor. ] ] 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::The previous threads regarding Ilena and Fyslee happened before Ilena linked to a disclosure of Fyslee's real name, which in itself can be bannable. From what I have seen, Fyslee has been reasonably responsive to feedback and appears to be making a genuine effort to abide by site standards. From the evidence that I have noted: providing a diff and subsequently behaving as if she did not understand what diffs are, then altering Fyslee's post header into something inflammatory while she accuses him of inappropriate action, Ilena's lease on ] is past due. She appears to be gaming our system. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Regarding "Posting another person's personal information", could someone remove Ilena's repeated breaches from her talk page, including the two she made today ? I don't think she'll take kindly to my doing it. --] 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Done. I will request the diff be oversighted. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what the real story with those links are, but if Fyslee has chosen to put his real name on that site then it's not appropriate for oversight. In addition anything that is available through a quick google search isn't really appropriate to oversight. It doesn't make it appropriate to add such links, but oversight is just not the proper solution. It's for things of such a sensitive nature that there should be no chance any admins should see it. I haven't seen the request come accross oversight-l, but if I do, I'll say the same. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* I would certainly support a final warning here. I am pretty confident that Fyslee will pull back from the brink, less so that Ilena will. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, her response at her user talk is entirely in line with her pre-blocking norm: it boils down to accusing Misplaced Pages of persecuting her. She's ignored my suggestion to enter ], which KillerChihuahua endorsed, and provides little documentation for her aggressive accusations. She hasn't supplied any additional evidence for her previous allegations or rescinded anything. It's as if she expects this site to accept ''proof by assertion'' or else Misplaced Pages must be biased against her. Per the discussion here I won't extend to indef at this point, but I hope some of the experienced editors at this thread drop a few words at her user page. The formal mentorship program in particular might be the best thing for her. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::We're talking about an intelligent, educated adult woman, editing under her real name, who, as an activist and campaigner, has something of a public profile. You wouldn't have been able to ''pay'' me to sign up for an adoption program when I first came to to Misplaced Pages and I don't blame her one iota for not wanting to sign up to be adopted. In fact, I would have been completely stunned if the response had been anything but what you say you got. ''']''' 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree with that on the adoption bit. But being an intelligent, educated adult makes her behavior all the worse. The recent diff show that behavior to be getting worse, not better, and does not demonstrate any desire to improve. Based on her repeating the same thing we made clear is inappropriate, it seems now she just wants us to ban her so she can be indignant about it. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've recommended ] to intelligent and educated people before. The ones who take up the advice usually benefit from it. Mentorship is about adjusting to site standards and - one would hope - avoiding problems. Most people would be more insulted by a long term block or a siteban than by a chance to improve their experience here at Misplaced Pages. When those appear to be the likely alternatives I advise mentorship. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Her behaviour has gotten both better and worse. When I first encountered Ilena, she was little more than a POV-pushing, linkspamming, edit-warring user. Since she's at least taken my suggestion to take disputes to talk pages, although her conduct there has been less than desirable. She has been responsive to my prompts, for some reason, and it's more or less why I have tried to mentor her, since she's been unresponsive and sometimes hostile to other's attempts at mentorship. Now since Durova appears to be threatening me with a block, I'm left in a bit of a conflict - do I keep on trying to improve a user's conduct to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and risk a block, or to "give in" and allow the encyclopedia be damaged by the actions of a heavy-handed administrator. *sigh* Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I want to clarify on that: I haven't threatened Peter with a block. I did discuss the possibility of a user conduct ] very seriously until I realized Peter had a death in the family this week. In light of that I've withdrawn the suggestion - which seemed at the time to be the only practical ''alternative'' to a block warning. I've been perfectly candid about this with Peter. He has challenged my administrative judgement repeatedly and I have invited him to raise his questions here (or in RFC - he knows I'm open to recall). So far he has declined to do so. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Is challenging "administrative judgement" a violation of a policy? Discussion of administrator actions, and even expressions of disagreement with them, seems to me to be a healthy part of discussions on talk pages. Any given administrator doesn't have a on refereeing or making decisions about disagreements. ] ] 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::That question seems to be rhetorical. This will probably get discussed in greater depth at arbitration, but of course editors are welcome to challenge my actions. Several times at Ilena's and Peter's user talk pages I informed them of several meaningful ways they could do so. I even initiated this thread in order to request community review of my decisions. That particular diff may look a bit awkward out of context, and if so I apologize. One of my trademarks when some thread gets particularly contentious is to ''blow the referee whistle'', which often succeeds in getting people to cool down. I don't know of any other editor besides myself who does that habitually so Peter's post did raise my eyebrow. It looked like an attempt to intimidate Fyslee on a very minor point, although as you can see I also asked Fyslee to comply in good faith. Peter took other and stronger actions at that page that did lead me to question his judgement and ask him to recuse himself. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:* ArbCom may well be a good way of solving this, since there is no real hurry and it requires a detailed reading of the evidence. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

===We need a new idea...===
OK, ] was rejected as Fyslee disagreed to mediation. I have been doing some further reading over the last two-three hours, and although I wasn't in the mood to compile them all, I believe that they both acted as bad as one another (literally, in no way metaphoric). Both have made problematic and/or disruptive edits to similar degrees at similar frequency, and without a formal place to discuss any solution I'm at a loss as to what to do next.

For me, there's only two options: ] them both, maybe even together (if at all possible), as well as some of the side-users to this who may ormay not have acted inappropriately. The other obvious one is ], and for me this is becoming more and more applicable given the attitude of Fyslee towards optional mediation (which Ilena may or may not share, I don't know - she didn't give a statement of intent at RFM).

I'm at a loss here, but I'll sleep on it and see if I have any other ideas in the morning. With this recent rejection by RFM due to the situation, I honestly can't see this being resolved outside of blocking/banning (whether full or certain actions/pages)/one user leaving the project without the assistance of the upper ends of ]. Of course, I'm sure everyone wants to avoid those three possibilities, and look for the common ground solution, for which I personally feel a RFC or RFAR will be needed to do.

As I said, I'll sleep on it, but I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this, and any other solution ideas. I'm short on them, at the moment :| Cheers, ''']''' 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm beginning to think that nothing short of the intervention of the ] is going to sort this mess out. There's been a lot of misconduct here, and it's not all by Fyslee or Ilena. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::Although I loathe arbitration that may be a fair assessment. It's disappointing to see that Fyslee rejected mediation. Based on the goings-on at Ilena's talk page I suspect an RFC would work out something like Jason Gastrich's did: a fractal business that leads to ArbCom anyway. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Yep, that's what I thought. I'll give it another couple of hours, then I'm going to force a resolution by proposing an ArbCom case at ]. I really ''didn't'' want to do this, but I don't feel there's any other choice. ''']''' 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

=== Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate ===

I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.

* If I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.

* If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.

My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101444539

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101446810

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

*1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding ]? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- ] 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

*2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- ] 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

*3. '''Do not agree'''. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- ] 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

*4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. ''To the best of my knowledge'', Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.

: The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have '''nothing to do with the breast implant issues''', but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)

: The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- ] 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) &

*5. '''Misguided RfM that should be canned'''

: If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then ] is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:

:* <nowiki>]</nowiki>

: This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Misplaced Pages, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:

:* <nowiki>]</nowiki>

: This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- ] 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

: Copied relevant comment from above:

:* This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- ] 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Misplaced Pages, not the content of the ] article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Misplaced Pages should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- ] 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

: '''Now I find this message posted to my talk page while I was composing the above''':

:* Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page ]. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

: Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- ] 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::Every user has a right to request Arbitration on any issue. Mostly, it is people engaged in the dispute who file them. It does not matter who initially requests it, as everyone's behaviour who is listed as a party is scrutinised. ''']''' 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The request for arbitration was filed because there was at least one user (and apparently several) who believed there was no other way of resolving the disputes you are involved with. I haven't studied the issues thoroughly, but let me ask you this: Short of arbitration, what steps do you think can be taken to end this series of disputes so everyone can get back to peaceful editing? ] 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::::If I may...I am not a party listed in the Arbitration and have not been involved in the dispute, although I have edited this article. What I do not understand is why Wizadry included ] in the mediation, when Ilena only made one edit there, Fyslee had not edited at all there nor had Ronz. Please help me understand the logic in this? How did Wizadry pick his articles to mediate/arbitrate?] 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::::*The mediation was rejected and content disputes are not within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, so I don't see much use in discussing the matter further at length. Suffice it to say that is one place Ilena wanted to have her links added. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ok, I did not realize that. Thank you for explaining it.] 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to ], I was under the impression that the normal "chain of steps" would include an RfC, before the ill-fated RfM. I have attempted to deal with this situation by providing Ilena with an to document her serious allegations against me. She has not only refused my requests to provide documentation, she has also refused everyone else's requests to do so (and many have done so), and considers repetitions of the same allegations as the same as documentation. They are not. They are continued attacks. I dispute her allegations. That does not mean I deny that they may be based on some fact in reality. I consider them to be her gross misrepresentations designed to damage my reputation. She does this on her websites and here at Misplaced Pages, and such behavior is not allowed here. The editor who voluntarily (and commendably!) chose to mentor her unfortunately ended up favorizing her and thus "aided and abetted" her in her course of action, and even immediately deleted (before examining her allegation) my provision of documentation for one of her clear untruths. I then reworded it and added it back, where it . It was a classic example of her typical method of misrepresenting matters. After he did that, I lost faith in his neutrality and in any hope of my being able to defend myself properly. This left her allegations standing without any real defense from my side. They are still there, and she knows perfectly well that having them at Misplaced Pages will cause search engines to help her in her agenda against me. Undocumented charges should not be allowed to be made or left standing. Please read them, and '''do not believe them''' before examining my side of the story, which I will gladly provide once she has provided evidence. Right now the allegations are so jumbled a mess that it is nearly impossible to be sure where to start. If she will follow the , then I will have a starting point. -- ] 10:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:: "Favoritizing"? I'm sorry, but after reading all this I'm going to stick you in the exact same catagory as Ilena. And when you start tossing out words like favoritizing, I tend to see someone not assuming good faith. Should I blindly accuse Durova of "favoritizing" you? What a crock. RfAr can be brought by anyone who feels it's neccessary. If the ArbCom thinks differently, they won't accept it. If they accept it, and if you "really" did all you good to fix this dispute, then you have nothing to worry about. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Elara, I don't think it helps this situation to call something ''a crock''. From the post Fyslee left at my page it seems that he loathes the hassle of arbitration. Having been through a few cases myself I share the sentiment. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::It's no excuse for temper-tantrums or name calling. Misplaced Pages has a ]. Occasional lapses are forgivable, but continued incivility is a breach of policy, and more importantly, it is harmful to the Wiki. Tangentially, "I don't like it" isn't really held as a strong argument on Misplaced Pages at all, last time I checked ] anyways. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== ]/SEO world championship -- expect a spam onslaught. ==

FYI -- ] is the name of a new spam article -- and the name of a SEO (]) ]. In a nutshell, the goal is to "optimize" (i.e., spam) enough links around the web as to make your site show up ahead of everyone else's. See this discussion: ] and check out our new article above. (And consider deleting it after you look at it). --] ] 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wow -- that was fast -- thanks for the deletion. For the curious, I had already saved a copy to a user subpage at ]. When we get the chance, folks at ] will start checking the links to see if we have any on article pages. And don't worry -- all links on non-article pages are coded by ] as ], so no spammer gets a page ranking boost from those links when they're on a user page.--] ] 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::The contest started January 15th, 2007 and will end in May 1st, 2007 so this will be a long drawn-out P.I.A assault. I'd expect all language versions will be aflicted. Keyphrase is "globalwarming awareness2007" so be aware of references or articles relating to this. --] 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like the links to the site should be spam blacklisted. ]|] 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*The article should be deleted and salted to prevent it being used, and links posted in conjuntion to it should be meta blacklisted as appropriate. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:*I've salted the article. ] 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::You mean protected. There's no need to bastardise English. ] (]) 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::] :> -<font color="#FF0000">]</font>] (])<small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::As every domain on the list was created on Jan 15 or after for this contest, we won't lose anything if we blacklist every single one and they won't be tempted to abuse wikipedia to play their sick little spammer games. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::*This would probably help stem it, but there will still be other domains they will come up with, I am sure, so continued vigilance should of course be advised :) Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 08:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

*I just thought I would pop by an place a slightly different perspective on this. I am someone who works with SEO, but have never spammed Misplaced Pages, in fact the main reason I created this account in the past was to remove spam from entries I saw.
There are legitimate ways to SEO websites without spamming. The rules of the contest very clearly stipulate that any "blackhat" methods are forbidden. Any site entering the contest even has to list full contact details on the site. The websites that might win the contest most likely will be high quality sites that have gained links legitimately by creative techniques that encourage other people to link to you, such as maybe competitions of their own, or providing excellent content worth linking to.
The change made will have a dramatic effect on search results unless Google decide to ignore NoFollow for this domain and there are other ways to control this. ]

* Note that per Jimbo's request to Brion, rel=nofollow is now set for links in all Misplaced Pages mainspace articles. Spamming Misplaced Pages will therefore be utterly futile (not that I expect that to stop them). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::"Utterly futile" whilst half a dozen prominent mirrors run our links without nofollow? I think not....--] ] 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:* Is Jimbo's request archived somewhere? If yes, could somebody please post a pointer to it? Thanks in advance (and sorry if I might have overlooked it). --] 12:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::* Found it: posted by Brion on Sat Jan 20 09:30:59 UTC 2007. --] 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Also if he gave any reasons? and ] were both quite strong votes against this although there was a smaller vote since which was split.--] ] 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You can check this feature out for yourself by having your browser display the source code (typically a menu bar command such as "View source code", "Source", or "Page source"); here's an example from the ] article:
:*<nowiki>"<a href="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&amp;pmid=15240306" class="external text" title="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&amp;pmid=15240306" </nowiki>'''''rel="nofollow"'''''<nowiki>>Geomicrobiology of high-level nuclear waste-contaminated vadose sediments at the hanford site, Washington state</a>" </nowiki>

The MediaWiki software does this automatically when converting wiki-code to html to send to browsers.--] ] 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The announcement is on the mailing list, but can't see any comment from Jimbo at this time. Once word gets out this should reduce the sneaky linkspam, like we recently saw on stub templates, HOWEVER, linkspamming Misplaced Pages will still be attractive for two reasons: 1) direct sales - like at the bottom of the ] article the section called '''Cheap insurance quotes''', and 2) the nofollow tag is not used by all search engines, and most Misplaced Pages mirrors (of which there are many) will strip the tag anyway. It's probably a step forward but not a silver bullet. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think it's a step backwards... If every website out there starts to use "nofollow" then google will stop paying attention to it. This could backfire in the long run guys. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::Agree totally. Mistake which will bite us. I will try to write it up somewhere tonight.--] ] 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Done: ] anyone taking bets? ;) --] ] 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::Google has asked us in the past to nofollow user submitted links. None of the search engines take it as gospel (which is yet another reason why nofollow isn't a replacement for the SBL), they simply use it as another factor in their analysis. In the future we'll be able to do better: Someday we plan on having some systems for content approval (not-vandalized flag, stable versions, etc.. there are many proposals)... such systems will ultimately allow us to have the community collectively approve links which are good. Until then we should be good netizens and tag our user submitted links as such. --] 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I have seen Matt Cutts (he is notable again now) suggest there should be a way to have some untrusted links nofollow, but not all. One thing I think is overlooked is that followable links are one of the factors in determining duplicate content and the original source for information. By adding nofollow, it might be looked on that you are not citing your sources correctly in an ethical manner. Last time I checked, Yahoo still followed and indexed nofollow pages, MSN and Google do not ] 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

* Don't forget to watchlist obviouis targets like ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

*Finally! This was a good decision. --]&lt;sac&gt; ] .oOo. 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*Hmph. We'll see. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

=== For your entertainment ===
* http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4655
* http://www.wickedfire.com/industry-news/7373-wikipedia-external-links-now-nofollow.html

]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like the SEO gang doesn't like time out in the corner. Pity. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::Quick glance of the links associated with posters in the threads Guy posted (not asserting non-notability), just interesting.

{{linksearch|*.cre8asiteforums.com|cre8asiteforums.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.7search.com|7search.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.pobox.com|pobox.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.elogodesign.com|elogodesign.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.endlesspoetry.com|endlesspoetry.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.tubgirl.com|tubgirl.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.redboxcodes.com|redboxcodes.com}}<br>--] 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:*And working backwards, it looks like one of the posters in one of the above forums is {{User|Thekohser}}, now known as {{User|MyWikiBiz}}. He's the one bragging about how Misplaced Pages is irrelevant now that he's found a NEW way to spam for his clients. Sounds like ] to me. --] | ] 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Sounds like he's found a new wiki directory that allows for ownership and protection of commercially-promoted articles, all while giving contributors the unlimited opportunity to earn Google AdSense and Amazon Associates revenues while they build out the directory's content. Would you say it's "spam" when a company lists itself in the Yellow Pages? That's the gist of your (weak) argument here. His company sounds like a much better financial deal than what Wikia offers its "volunteers". If that's sour grapes, ], I want me some. --] 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*And it's regugitated advertising buzzspeak like that which instantly trips my BS detector -- that, and things like trying to , and to ]'s user page. Back again under a new name, eh? Pimping your site on that forum above wasn't enough, you had to come here, too? --] | ] 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Now, now. Assume good faith. I do not have ANY ownership interest in that company. You folks could learn a lot from the Wikia.com model -- when people are annoying you, find them a new home that welcomes their annoying little traits, and send them there. --] 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Assume good faith '''in the absence of evidence to the contrary'''. So far, a metric buttload of evidence to the contrary, JossBuckle Swami/MyWikiBiz/TheKohser/whatever-you're-calling-yourself-this-month. --] | ] 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Metric buttload! That's a good one. Calton, don't you see? It's so easy to keep contributing to Misplaced Pages when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction. You, like so many others, haven't even READ what Jimmy Wales did to MyWikiBiz, have you? Would it be so difficult to learn the whole story? You know, the one where MWB created a company based on the tenets of the Reward Board, then acted in the bright light of full disclosure, formed a mutual agreement with Jimmy Wales, then the community literally changed the rules by creating a "conflict of interest" policy out of thin air, which Jimmy then got behind and dismissed MyWikiBiz, then defaced MWB's user page, thus running off their business, all while promoting a donation-supported environment that serves as a link-farm for his for-profit Wikia.com? Get a clue. (Don't make me unplug my modem and come up with another anagram user name again.) --] 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*''It's so easy to keep contributing to Misplaced Pages when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction.'' A metaphor involving ebony-colored cookware is coming to mind, however elaborately you spin your history here. One also wonders why if your site is so damned wonderful and profitable and just so much better than Misplaced Pages, you still feel the need to come over to Misplaced Pages to pimp it. The door? Over there, and be careful not to let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out. --] | ] 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*Something about not throwing stones when you live in glass houses comes to mind. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Bosnian War ==

Basically, ] is utterly opposed to any reference to Jihadists being involved in the Bosnian War. This would be OK, ''however'' - he has knowingly contravened numerous Misplaced Pages policies. ] (he didn't present any sources to show there weren't Jihadists and dismissed reputable ones such as the BBC and The Guardian (i.e. not Serbian propaganda websites), see ]), ] (he edited the article based on your his own theories in the the face of sources which contradicted his views - the BBC source was dismissed as "propaganda"), ] (inserting "Crusaders" to refer to Russians/Greeks to make the point that there were no Jihadists, again with no sources ) and ] & ] (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). You can see the whole discussion ]. All these policy violations were . His response? I'm a "funny guy." Basically it's like talking to a brick wall - sources, reasoned arguments etc all mean nothing to him, because He Knows Better and That's That. // ] 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hadžija, as long as your sources are notable and verifiable, I would argue that it is legit for them to stay in the article. Obviously making sure that these comments are properly attributed (i.e. "According to the BBC, at the time..." Regards, --]<sup>]</sup> 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::I have added a footnote to the article. After a quick look in Lexis-Nexis I found almost 2000 articles regarding this, including a report from the Bosnian state prosecution. So I guess that if the term is good enough for the current Bosnian judiciary, it should be OK for the article. If in doubt, I suggest you place a ]--]<sup>]</sup> 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

==Edits to ] ==

We requested page protection to end the reverts during our dispute resolution and mediation. Why are we reverting the protected version? This seems inappropiate. I believe the version initially found just before page protection should stay untill we can discuss this on the talk page. Reverts are disruptive. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Because it is a ] issue, it is best to tread cautiously at least until the issue is settled. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::Which is what I did. ] 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::It just suprised me to see the change reverted, then reverted back on the protected page. I believe one version or the other should stay untill this is settled. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Um, guys, how is putting his birthday as July 17 "potentially libelous"? Worse, after another admin reverted Cbrown, he reverted back ''again''. Navou is right, the change on this page is totally inappropriate, an Cbrown should undo himself. ''Airing on the side of caution'' does not mean removing a ''birthdate'' as libelous, and seems to go against the spirit of ], using one's admin priveledges to circumvent this problem. Bad move bad move, IMHO. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I quote ]:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.</blockquote>I have absolutely no involvement in this, and yes, maybe Cbrown1023 was wrong to essentially wheel war, but this is what Misplaced Pages official policy says, and in this case, with how BLP can have potential real-world issues, it's better to err on the side of caution. However, I'm not Cbrown, so I won't speculate about his full reasoning; I just thought that paragraph would be interesting and relevant. Cheers, ''']''' 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: Per BLP, Cbrown's edits were absolutely the right move. ] (]) 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I was unaware of that provision of BLP, which greatly removes a lot of the offense. Still, I think the wheel warring was inappropriate. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Check out . It overrides normal restraints. ] 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*The only page protections that should not be edited, or reverted, are those placed under the provisions of ]. Any other protection is malleable under administrators' discretion, though of course they should show a good deal of sense and care when editing or reverting protected pages. Furthermore, edit warring and wheel warring are both counterproductive and harm the integrity of the Wiki, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== PD-Soviet is deprecated ==

{{tl|PD-Soviet}} is only transcluded into ''one'' file (which was recently uploaded), and uploads are no longer accepted onto it. Commons has long since redirected the version there to the copyvio template; I think we should do something similar with the en version, a TfD is not appropriate in my opinion as we may restore this template, and the discussion on its talk page may be useful. Any thoughts?--]] (]) 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected; that should do it ... ] 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fix the double redirect ? ] 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:It wasn't protected, you could've fixed it in less time than it took you to post here asking someone else to do it ... ] 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*I've also fixed {{]}}, which was another old redirect. Does anybody know if there are any others hiding out there? <tt style="color:#161;">''Gavia immer''<small> (]|])</small></tt> 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Is this appropriate for a user page? ==

{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: Grey;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: Black; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|white}}};" | '''{{{3|]}}}'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user believes that ''']''' are worse than ''']s'''.
|}</div>

I don't want to bring it up to said user and an admin sent me here for community advice. To see the full spectrum, check out my userpage. ] 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Check out . It probably covers most of what you have. ] 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::That is completely inappropriate for a userpage (or anywhere for that matter).--] ] 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:As the admin who sent Jasper here, my thoughts are the same as Tyrenius'. I also wanted to emphasize that the boxes on Jasper's page are not Jasper's boxes, but rather boxes he has copied from the as yet unnamed user's page simply for illustration (at least I believe that's what happened). · '''<font color="#709070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' · 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think having every one of those userboxes on a userpage is extremely bad judgement, this one particularly. ] 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
'''A different question:''' Bottom line is this. Wikipedians are given userspace to assist the project and to help them work with other users. Yes, we don't have too many rules - and Wikipedians have latitude, but if something isn't going to help the project or user relations then any good wikipedian should stay clear of it. This is obviously going to be inflammatory and at very least discussing it will be a distraction from important things. Thus, Jasper23, if you are here to serve this project, you will want to remove it, and anything similar, regardless of what the letter of policy might say. A good wikipedian will not want to take the chance of distracting us from real encyclopedic work. So the question is not 'is this allowed?', it is 'are you a good wikipedian'? --]<sup>g</sup> 01:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The unnamed user is {{User|AmeriCan}} (God knows why you're all being coy about it). I have removed that particular box from his page. The rest should probably be dumped in the bit bucket, too, but that was so obviously bad I nuked it immediately. --] | ] 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Again, just to clarify in case anyone missed this earlier, these are not Jasper's userboxes, they are copied from another user page and he is asking for discussion. I found the original source's userpage with about 2 minutes of digging through and cross-referencing the images used in the boxes. The userpage in question also has a rather soapbox-y rant against Bill Maher and claims him to be in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. It's rather intriguing, actually. (Edit conflict: Calton has unveiled above.) —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like he's Talk Page spamming other conservatives (hmm, more evidence about why political userboxes are a Bad Idea, as they enable this behavior) to rally around some ] issue, to fight off those nasty liberals. Lovely. --] | ] 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I've nominated the page for deletion. Somehow I doubt that this user created it in good faith.--] ] 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry everyone. I should have been more clear about where those boxes came from. I guess the "I stole these" on my page wasn't that clear. Reading back through my post I realize I should have stated the issue more clearly and identified the userbox owner. Well, thanks for quick treatment. ] 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like a violation of ] is going on with this user. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Concur with the ] and image deletion. The goal at Misplaced Pages is to describe political controversies rather than take part in them. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, all the userboxes, including the nazi one, are back. Although he did leave out the Bill Maher rant. ] 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:I deleted to page again as a ] as the ] clearly came to a consensus that those userboxes were unacceptable. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Denying vandals recognition ==

I'm think it might help to apply ] to ]. At this point he's just trying to get as much attention as possible and reveling in every little bit he gets. If we stop making a big deal out of anything Cplot-related, but just ], hopefully the problem will go away. I can't really think of any reason these Cplot socks need to be categorized; they're all blocked indef, so there's no need to continue watching any of them. --] 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:This is really a question for the checkusers, whether any of the listings that are being made are helpful to them. ] 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::As a general rule, no, they're not useful. Ask me in private for the reason why. --] 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::While I generally agree with you Cyde, I think descisions about how information on sockpuppets is disseminated and organised should really be up to the checkusers. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Evidently there's some need for sockpuppet tagging, see the : Evidently there's some reason to tag them beyond the length of their CheckUzer usefulness. ] 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Anyone have some free time? ==

Because I've found something you can ocupy it with. I was browsing through the toolserver, when I found , which lists talk pages with no article (aka G8). It was compiled by Rob Church, and I have no idea how long ago, but some of the pages are still around, and can be safely speedy deleted. Some of them are alos incorrectly archived talk pages, or redirects to those talk pages (which can mostly be deleted as R3's. There's no conceivable good reason for a talk page archive redirect). So, if you've got nothing better to do, this is a good place to come. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Delete all pages. -- ] 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Er, that's the point.—] (]) 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I feel like someone else ran this more recently, but I can't remember where. It's more useful on-wiki, so that one can see which links are red and which blue. If ''you'' have some free time, Royalguard11, you could copy it over. . . ] 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Be careful to ''not'' delete any pages with information as on how to create a new article, one of the exceptions to CSD G8. Also, some pages may be tagged with {{tl|Needed-Class}}, so take care of not nuking those too. ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Since when is that an exception, especially as ] doesn't actually say so? ] 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, speaking of which, I've got a quick question about talk pages. I've been tagging some image talk pages (deleted through replaceable fair use), but is this right? FUC #1 discussion don't take place elsewhere. ] 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:No. Don't delete talk pages with non-redundant discussion about the deletion of the page on it. We want to keep that visible. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::Oh great. Can an admin view my deleted edits to the Image: space? I tagged at least three image talk pages. One was an image about an obese child, and two others were baout replaceable fair use images. ] 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I put up a crudely Wikified copy of the first part of the list (A-J) here: (]), if anyone wants to take a stab at this. --] | ] 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, a quick skim shows that almost all the orphaned talk pages have already been deleted, and from the dates on the few that remain, this list was probably compiled in May of 2006. Just so you know. --] | ] 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::UPDATE: Spoke too soon. Looks like the "K"s onward are chockful of orphaned talk pages. I've updated my list, and took a stab at tagging the "K"s. --] | ] 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to delete as many as I can. I've done up to "M". -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Ownership Issues, something not quite right..... ==

I came across ] in the thread above, and thought something was a little odd....
He's self-listed as the 'head' of the ] - which seems to have some odd instructions on it (ie. don't edit this bit, wait until the co-ordinator or chairperson has done something or other...) - he also self-identifies as holding the responsibility of a Clerk office for CheckUser, and I found it a little odd that he also seems to have the same text about page vandalism as Jimbo.

Nothing massively untoward, but it seems to me that he's projecting false authority in about the nicest way i've ever seen it done...... perhaps this isn't at all un-wiki-ish and its all in my head, what do you think? ] 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:That bit about being the head of the WNP racked up a few oppose votes in his recent RFA. ] 07:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would actually read the text of things before they complained about it. Really, it would make for a lot less hurt feelings and cooler heads. The text is taken from Jimbo's page (it's actualy templated somewheres, but I took the template code and changed it to fit my userpage). Jimbo's perfectly okay with this. Perhaps some attribution is in order though - I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Secondly, as the "head" (the title that was given was "chairperson", and it's actually mostly in jest per some early discussion on the matter when the project was still in the proposal stage) I have asserted numerous times on the talk page of the WNP that the WNP has no special weight in the matter, nor do I, myself. I'm just another guy. Really, really. My own role is mostly trying to keep the whole thing together and coordinated, I leave the "in the trenches" editing to subject experts and only reply to WNP requests for areas in my own area of expertise.

Just to be completely clear: '''The Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project has no special weight or authority.''' Consensus rules wikipedia, not a small group with similar interests - maintaining NPOV. Anyone who asserts the WNP has special authority is wrong.

It is my hope that addresses everything. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:In either case, why is this something for ]? ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::They're legitimate concerns, although I agree this isn't the best venue. If it was refactored onto my talk page I'd be happy to continue the discussion there, so long as Purples is informed of the move. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:::That's the first thing that I thought. If I had been in your place, looking at the Noticeboard and seeing a discussion about me springing up from nowhere, I would be quite... shocked. ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::::(Editing with Lynx sucks sometimes. Can someone move the further comments above Titoxd's comments so this discussion makes more sense? Thanks.) I was, very much so. But keeping a cool head works wonders sometimes :) Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Some further points I missed when first reading the comment:
:The bits about don't edit "x" section are hold outs from a partially failed restructuring of the project. I should probably remove them. I will make that a priorty. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
:The identification as a clerk is for identification purposes only, and for the same reason one identifies as an administrator, sysop, checkuser, steward, et cetera. I have knowledge of the processes of ] being a RFCU clerk, so I identify as such so that people know that I am someone they can approach with concerns regarding RFCU cases.
:As a RFCU clerk, I have absolutely no say in RFCU matters. That is the purview of the presiding checkuser. My only function is to organise requests, format them as appropriate, fulfill occasional requests for additional informations given by the checkusers, and archive cases when they are completed. It is a conflict of interest to voice opinions on listed or potential cases, and I have no authority to encourage certain descisions, challenge them, or overturn them. In short my authority on RFCU is nil. I just have knoweldge of that process that users may find useful, and therefore welcome approaches from users for help listing their cases.
:Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*I've edited the project page to remove its "chairperson". Wikiprojects shouldn't have hierarchies. ] 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
**What about (probably) the most successful one? I believe they are having elections right now. I think a properly handled hierarchy ''can'' work, but it has to be a very flat, decentralised one. I guess most times things can be handled by people volunteering for stuff and working together. Sometimes, though, leadership can keep things moving forwards, but I agree that formalising such things is often bad. There are also problems when too many people volunteer for a particular position. Usually the conclusion is that elections are needed to decide who gets the position, but actually, the conclusion should usually be that the position is popular because too much power has been centred in one position. Instead of holding elections, the position should be split up among the volunteers following discussion. ] 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
***I'd like to remind everyone that the WNP discussion page is ]. This is not the appropriate venue. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
The kind of ]n ruler that makes one stop wondering how this great country could have been dominated by foreigners for so long. Inept he is, to say the least. Accusing me of having continued warring on ] after having been reported for 3RR, which is not true (is warring ?) makes a sick joke of this man. ] really is the kind of admin Misplaced Pages needs to ruin its credibility. ] 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
: If you kept switching back and forth between the two, then yes, that is edit warring. Also, it makes yourself look worse if you focus ''that'' much on his ethnicity. ]] 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Generally, Nick is a good user. Everyone makes slip ups. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::What slip-ups? Check the history of the page. He has been revert-warring since a few days. Block came in warranted. ], and don't you see the ]? User has been trolling and has left remarks in racial undertones on my talk page, and his own. <tt>>:)</tt> &mdash; ] 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I wasn't making a statement or judgment on this particular case. I was saying that generally, everyone makes mistakes and users need to be more tolerant of others. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've warned ] about the lack of civility and specifically that it is unhelpful to make racist statements about other editors. --] 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Actually that particular list has been the focal point of a long-running user dispute. When I first encountered it I offered some constructive advice, yet I doubted the inclusion standards could ever be defined well enough to meet encyclopedic standards. I've voiced that at the deletion discussion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
* As Durova notes above, I have taken the ] to AfD, for reasons stated in the nomination. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*Any more racist statements from RCS will result in a block from myself. The comments referred to by Guinnog and NHN verge on reprehensible -- ] 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*Yes, that is very reasonable, Samir. NHN is your favorite piece of ass, after all. ] 07:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== WikiPrograms that are still not useful ==

Based upon last week's thread (]), ] is working on a reform and a change of focus, to help people with editor skills rather than gaming the system at RFA. However, ] is not. For one part it is redundant with ER, for another it's still about telling people what RFA "wants to hear". I believe it would be best if AC was deprecated (no, I do not mean "deleted") so that novice users desiring guidance have one central productive place to look at. ] 12:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
* I remain of the view that admin coaching is a fundamentally bad idea, in a way that admin mentorship is not. I mean, what sane person would ''want'' this shit? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
** Um, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], just to name a few... they're all shit bananas, apparently. ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Good point, Radiant. And Guy, that reasoning would mean all of us are nuts. Then again, maybe we are... ;) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:* 100% of a sample of Misplaced Pages admins in my house was found to be barking mad. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::* HAY! I only came in for a pint! ] 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Review of Indef Ban ]==

I am requesting review of the indef ban of ]. I have been in contact with this user and he is willing to not edit the ID article, submit to mentoring, and probation. I believe he is quite sincere ]]]. 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:From someone who endorsed the community ban at ANI. For starters, it should be '''all''' articles even faintly associated with ID. Secondly, mentoring has had mixed results, as on occasion I have seen for myself. Thirdly, the problem is not merely one of bias. This fellow used an extremely unpleasant editing style: blocks for 3RR,WP:POINT violations, and on occasion some extremely unpleasant personal attacks. This sort of thing is likely to follow an editor around whatever they edit. Given all this, I feel that the encyclopedia and the community will not benefit from letting Raspor back in, but I suppose I could be persuaded. ] <sup> ]</sup> 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::He probably would agree to that. ]]]. 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Given the fact that he has now evaded the ban several times, with at least one sock and an IP that I know of, I am not convinced. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
** I had typed up a very similar message; one edit conflict later and I will simply ] Guy's comment. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==Gaming the system==
i am watching an interesting case unfold with respect to the definition of a reliable source.
#An editor wishes to add some content they consider notable. But there are no reliable sources.
#After the fact, a blog is opened by a credible journalist with content that could be used as a source.
#Editor claims to know the journalist.
#Editor claims it is a reliable source since wikipedia accepts quotes written in blogs by credible journalists.

I would discount this blog as a reliable source since it seems just too convenient that the blog appeared with the required information during the dispute on wikipedia. How should one deal with such a case? ] ] 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Is this the journalist's personal blog or a publishing sponsored blog... i.e. Journalist X has a regular blog that he writes for and is hosted on Time.com? If this is a personal blog I don't think it matters if the journalist is credible or not... There is nothing in ] that suggests this is in any way an acceptable source. In fact it says "'''When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise''', or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these ''may'' be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." If this has never been previously published I would say this is not a reliable source. Whether or not the editor knows the journalist is besides the point. If this is an "official" blog, I'd say it ''might'' pass muster, but again I don't think writing an article on one journalist's blog posting is the right way to go. I'd request additional sources. Of course it is hard to say in this specific situation without actually seeing the article, source, and journalist in question with diffs.--] 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*Note: RS does not state that the journalist in question must have published the specific piece of wriitng elsewhere: else we would never accept self-published material from professional journalists, but always use the cite from the the "credible third party publication" instead. Admitting self-published material by professional journalists makes a distinction between the 60 million bloggers who are not professional journalists, and the slim minority who are. When they self-publish, they put their professional credibility on the line, in a way that the mass of bloggers do not. This credibility is determined by whether or not they have been published in credible third party publications. In this case, the journalist has self-published something in the area of their experise: language. While the specific material noted has not been published elsewhere, other similar specific material has been published in credible third party publications, and no reason has been offered to doubt the claims asserted by the author.-] 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::I could give you the specifics but i didn't want to drag people into the argument. The blog is not an official blog, in fact, it is not even the journalists primary blog. I think you make a good point re: the third party publication. it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point. I think requesting additional sources is the best way to go. Thus the arguments about RS and the legitimacy of the blog can be dropped. thanks for your input. ] ] 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::: ''"it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point."'' There's your answer right there. AGF is irrelevant. We cannot absolutely verify that the named journalist is the author: it is not a reliable source. If it's on some site like blogspot, they have no way to verify authorship, and neither do we. Period. End of discussion. ] 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

*It may pass WP:RS, but it might have WP:OR problems, as well as problems with WP:V's call to use reliable, third party sources. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::'''Isotope23''', the blog was created and the information was posted a few hours befor it was cited. No, the journalist dosn't have a blog on a his paper's website. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Nevermind... I found what ] was talking about on my own while dealing with another issue... man what a mess that whole thing is... Regardless, that is a blogspot post, In my opinion, there is no way, even if this is a notable journalist and her identity can be proven, that this could be considered a reliable source for the grafitti info unless there are other existing sources to back this up. ] is right, this should be non-negotiable even if there is some consensus to keep it in the article. It simply is not in anyway a reliable source under the current ] guidelines; and the talk of changing ] that seems to have sprung out of the RfC related to this situation is ridiculous.--] 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*Note: There are other existing sources regarding the graffiti, both in general and in specific. The "talk" re changing the RS guideline was initiated by Milo H. Minderbinder, regarding establishing the identity of authors.-] 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
===part 2===
Interesting development that needs further input:

The journalist has two blogs, one is an official blog. The second blog (blogspot), with the disputed ''facts'', was started on Jan 15th 2007. The journalist has linked to the blogspot entry from his official blog, however, the link has been incorporated into a entry he made on Dec 12th 2006. To me (not assuming good faith here) it seems a lot like trying get vanity facts (in this cases specific examples of graffiti) into wikipedia by getting them a seal of approval from authority (the journalist in this case). I see this as exploiting a loophole in the guidelines. Is this any different to than writing ones own personal web site and then using it as a primary source? I am assuming that there needs to be an independant source in this situation. ] ] 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Even if the information were on the person's primary blog, its value would be dubious, as for all blogs. As for the other, '''anything''' on blogspot.com has to be rejected as not meeting the standards of a ]. ] 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::That is your opinion, and not what is stated in RS regarding self-published material by professional journalists.-] 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::But we do not have any reliable source to verify that this material was created by that journalist. Blogspot does not verify article authorship in any way, and a dubious link in the purported author's own blog seems to predate this one by a month, which makes it suspicious at best. If we cannot absolutely, positively, without question verify the authorship, it's worthless. ] 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::That's your opinion, it's rather negative and IDONTLIKEIT, and they don't seem to agree with you at RS--see ongoing discussion.-]
:::::They don't know, in theory, where the ongoing discussion is occuring. See, ], ] and of course ] ] ] 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I can't believe that Cindery is still arguing about crap links on Barrington Hall. Aren't there any ''good'' sources? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::She claims there are two other sources, which makes the insistence on this blog all the more puzzling. Thankfully, we have a proposal for editing the article that has received support so far. If anyone here wants to recommend a course of action, feel free to drop in at ]. --] 13:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== User warnings harmonisation ==

Just a note to say that ] is ready to "go live" with their ]. Comments are appreciated (here or there). Thanks, <strong>]<font color="red">]</font></strong> 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, great, I'm going to have to retrain my fingers when warning vandals... A quick glance-through of the warnings looks pretty good to me - might be easier to find the ones I'm looking for in this package. ] <small>]</small> 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Everything looks great (except for a minor issue I made note of on the talk page). The only thing I dislike is the extra 3 characters at the beginning of each warning. "uw-" as a prefix for all the templates? Is there anyway to eliminate that? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The idea was to prevent conflicting with the old system right away, and to harmonize things, a bit like the db templates do. And it helps not conflicting with, for example, the {{tl|pov}} template. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::grumble grumble -- ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Looks great, I will switch over when it ''goes live''. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And they're now live. JS I've moded the template with respect to your point on the blocks. Regards ] <sup>(] . ])</sup> 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:I have a problem with the {{]}}, {{]}}, and {{]}} tags in that they all indicate that a block is imminent and are intended to be followed up with a {{]}} template... but none of those things are ]. Giving people who just disagree about style an excuse to 'tag' each other with threats of blocks for 'vandalism' is a bad idea... ditto turning every content dispute into a war of 'uncensored' and 'unsourced' tags. All three of these things are supposed to be directed to dispute resolution... not falsely labeled as vandalism. --] 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed. There's far too much throwing of templates on user talk pages going on at Misplaced Pages. And people are also too hasty to use the word "vandalism". Going against consensus is not vandalism. It's edit warring, and it's a Bad Thing, but it's not vandalism. Removing or adding POV tags is not vandalism, though there are times when it could be justifiable to roll them back or to revert without counting towards 3RR. (For example, if a user or an IP went to '''''every''''' article about every religion, and added {{tl|POV}} on the grounds that all religions are POV and that articles about them can't be neutral, I wouldn't hesitate to use rollback.) But generally, content-dispute pettty squabbles should not involve hurling the word "vandalism" around. By the way, you say "none of these things are ]." I'd say they're "not ''necessarily'' vandalism". Under certain circumstances, they might be. For example, the "not censored" one. If you edit war at ] to remove an image, against consensus, because you feel it shouldn't be there, then regardless of what others say, it's not vandalism, though you can still be justifiably blocked for edit warring. But if some anon or newly-registered user blanks the whole article on ], with an edit summary saying that it's indecent to mention such things, I think that troll can certainly be treated as a vandal. But a standard vandalism warning template would be appropriate. There's no reason for the {{tl|uw-vandalism4}} one. If it's a new user, put a {{tl|3RR}} on his talk page. If he's not reverting fast enough to warrant a 3RR block, then the established Wikipedians should have time to write a short ''personal'' message, referring him (with a link) to the appropriate section of the page on the policy that he's inadvertently breaking. I get increasingly concerned at the proliferation of templates used as black marks to be publicly displayed on the page of someone who has been naughty, rather than to make someone aware of a policy in order to help him. ]] 11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well said!--]<sup>g</sup> 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==Erm...==

Not like this really ''belongs here'', but I'm just wondering: did I really misuse "Wikify" (The context being that I thought the template should be moved, to "Wikify" article) and did my edit merit a revert and a warning on my talk page ? --] ] 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:That "Revert" looks a litter questionable: I've never seen a template with that long a name. As to the warning, if it misusing a phrase in an inflammatory way (EG. Overbroad application of "vandalism"/"vandal"), I could understand a warning. I suspect the ] has a more exact definition of it, but I don't see your use of it as being worthy of a stronger warning then the usuall "Please use edit summaries" one. ] 07:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I wouldn't consider that misuse of the term "wikifying", and certainly not harmful misuse; I'd include general fiddling with the order and formatting of the article to get it to match standard Misplaced Pages format as "wikifying", particularly when it's the order of templates or other wiki-syntax. And from an easy-of-editing prospective, I'd prefer {{tl|List of people K}}, as easier to work with than the cryptically-named {{tl|Lopbn p}}, which also has no documentation, and appears to take some strange arguments (and a large number of them). ] 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Protection expiry ==

] to whoever decided to come up with the expiry time for protection. However, is there some sort of guideline on how long protections should last? Or is it just Your Best Judgment® for now? -- ''']''' 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*This is a fairly new MW feature I believe, and no policy currently exists regarding it, though some discussion on what protection lengths would be appropriate would probably be a Good Thing<sup>TM</sup>. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
** Blame ]. <tt>;)</tt> ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is so cool! ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wow... Why didn't we think of this 6 months ago? :) ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Heh. You know, more developers = more spiffy features for us... so, all users who have a decent knowledge of PHP should help out! <tt>:)</tt> ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
* Just noticed it. Also "protect pages transcluded on this". w00t! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that there's no note of the expiry of the protection in the page history, but still, that and cascading protection are awesome! --] ] 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:I was wondering if anyone would ever thing of this... ] 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
: You mean an automated "protection has expired" entry in the page's history? That ''does'' seem like a bug, because isn't recorded in the edit summary of the protection null edit. ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Also, you can repeatedly unprotect pages (even when not protected) and leave null edits in the page history. Just FYI. --] ] 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::The protection log DOES record the expiration date, if we can get that in the auto edit summary it would be useful. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:To help us all along with this great new feature I've updated/created:
* Interface: ] (new super-brief instuctions)
* Template for tagging: ] ({{t1|tprotected}}) (includes end-user link to the expiration date)
*: Short form redirect for template: ] ({{t1|tprot}})
* Category for new tag'd items ]
** — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Important note, if a page has existing protection (e.g. Edit=Auto,Move=Sysop) and you change the protection to anything (e.g. Edit=Sysop, Move=Sysop) AND use an expiration, '''ALL''' protections will be removed upon expiration. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Shouldn't almost all protections be temporary? I thought that was the point: to eliminate the interminable backlog at ] by having expiration times for protections. -- ''']''' 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh what do we need a guildline for. The protecting admin should have an aprox idea as to how long the protection should last for.] 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. We can figure it out on a case-by-case basis, and over time, admins can look at the lengths others are using and come to some sort of a consensus. --] 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::We can create a policy when a need demonstrates itself. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is not automatically removed though, is it? ] 02:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very nice feature. I think a protection length equal to the block for troll squalling, i.e. those people who after being blocked repetitively spew obscenities onto their talk pages. ''Article'' protection timing will require some thought, but 24 hours might be a good starter for cool-down on edit wars. This feature is great--I sometimes forget to unprotect pages once I step in to stop vandalism or an edit war. ] ] 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Sweet! Quick, someone edit {{tl|utprotected}} now that the block log and page protections can be synchronized. Come to think of it, the page protections can be integrated as an option into the block interface (EG. "Protect user/usertalk pages (Use only for trolls like BA)"). ] 07:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can someone take a look at the article history here? Some editor (and an anon who's probably the same person) keeps inserting a picture of Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia in chains as relevant to the history of slavery. ] 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:To judge the sincerity of the edits, the same editor(s), {{User|SolRosenBerg}} and {{user|13.8.125.11}}, have also been repeatedly re-inserting ]'s picture into ]. -- ] 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Lol, Jabba, that is funny. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== {{User|AmeriCan}} ==

Despite being warned for ] such as , this user has continued in it. I recommend at least a temporary block. (See also the "Is this userbox appropriate" section above for details on his attack userpage which has since been deleted.)--] ] 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Unless I am missing something this user has not canvased since the warning. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, I somehow made the exact same mistake as Azer last night when I checked his contribs. But nah, he hasn't done anything other than edit your talk page once complaining about free speech since he was warned and his userpage was deleted. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to switch my time zone to GMT in preferences so that the times in the sigs and the times in the logs match, I am always getting confused. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== {{vandal|Reboty}} ==

Could an admin please look at this user's edits (). I think they are probably vandalism, but I haven't gone over them very thoroughly.--] ] 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:They look fine to me; he's replacing red links to non-existent ranks with live links to existent ones. The trouble is he never uses edit summaries &mdash; but that seems almost ''de rigeur'' these days... --] (]) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Spamming of Category:Board games ==

{{lc|Board games}} has been flooded by spam over the past months. If there are no objections, I will delete all the spam edits from the article and restore only the clean edits. The reason for this is the following: when the edits are in the page history, they can still be viewed by readers. Once they are deleted from the article, they will no longer be visible for normal readers, which makes spamming the category a lot less attractive for the spammers. Any thoughts? ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds fine. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== A pair of protected edit requests ==

There's now a pair of {{]}} requests, at ] and ], respectively. The first of the two has been sitting in place for some time. Unfortunately, I am not entirely confident in editing these two MediaWiki pages that are quite central, at least not on my own -- anybody care to comment or have some input? ] 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{vandal|JossBuckle Swami}} is the latest ban-evading incarnation of Gregory Kohs ({{vandal|MyWikiBiz}} / {{vandal|Thekohser}} / {{vandal|207.8.215.81}}). Having descended yet again into trolling and pushing his agenda with relation to the blocking of his MyWikiBiz account, I have blocked him. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*Appears like a sound desicision to me. I knew something didn't smell right, and it wasn't the fast food I had for dinner. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Um, he did fully admit to it above. Anyway, what's wrong with this guy being around? Just curious. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::What is wrong is a few things. First, he was blocked by Jimbo and has not been unblocked, so any new account is a ban-evading sockpuppet, block on sight and delete any articles as ]. Second, he honestly thinks Misplaced Pages is in business to attract companies to create articles. He thinks that we are failing in a findamental aim because we erect barriers to companies creating PR articles on themselves. In other words, he simple ''does not get it'', despite having had the conept of Misplaced Pages explained ot him multiple times. Third, he keeps lapsing into vanity and spamming of his own websites. Fourth, he keeps trolling. Fifth, he is selling Misplaced Pages articles. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Huh. I'd figured out JossBuckle Swami was my MyWikiBiz (easy enough to follow the trail), but I hadn't realized he'd been banned. Oy, I could have saved the trouble of arguing with him. --] | ] 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I think we can consider MyWikiBiz to be community-banned, beyond Jimbo's personal block. ] 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:We can assume two things: as long as his site is up he will be banned, and he will continue creating sockpuppets. -- ] 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

===Let's make this official===
I propose a community ban of {{vandal|MyWikiBiz}}, {{vandal|Thekohser}}, {{vandal|JossBuckle Swami}}, et al. for disruption, spamming, and damaging the integrity of Misplaced Pages. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

<i><b>Please note</b> that Jimbo did not '''ban''' MyWikiBiz, he '''blocked''' MyWikiBiz, and later unblocked MyWikiBiz with a strongly worded message on their user page disowning the practice of hiring editors to write articles on Misplaced Pages.</i> ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
**].
<code>04:59, October 5, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MyWikiBiz (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages name in commerce; implying that people can pay him to get listed in Misplaced Pages)</code>
**So, banned by Jimbo. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Indef block != ban. Bans apply to a person or entity, and are enforced by a block. A block is just a mechanical means of stopping the edits of one account. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

*Seconded. If they won't go peacefully, then we need to get out the big guns. ] ] 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*Thirded. It's bad enough, IMHO, to offer that sort of business, but block evasion makes it even worse. Especially Jimbo-block evasion. ] ] 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Yup. Disruptive, vain, spammer, ], disruptive, and disruptive. Oh, and he's disruptive, too. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* I support the idea, but aren't we differentiating between a ban made by Jimbo and a ban made by the community? What follows, a ban by the Arbitration or the Foundation? Just wondering... -- ] 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
**He was blocked by Jimbo. I think it makes sense to make clear that he is banned too. Personally I thought that was already implicit, but there's no reason not to make explicit. ] 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*<s>Here's the thing: he was banned by Jimbo, and ''soon unbanned''. I think we need to keep that in mind. Keep in mind, I'm not taking a stance on the current ban: I don't know him well enough.</s> Striking, he was rebanned. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''endorse ban''' - please do... we don't want people paying mywikibiz for articles in wikipedia. Thats just not right, and exaberates the spam problem that we already have. —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. ] 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Who's the brave soul who will start the ] article? "A company founded by Greg Kohs that charges money to create Misplaced Pages articles. Kohs is indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages, and any articles created by him may be deleted without debate under ]{{tl|fact}}". Oh bugger, self-reference. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' permanent ban. This is so far from the principles of Misplaced Pages that I don't see anything wrong in having a declaration both from Jimbo and from the community that we will not have anything to do with it. ] 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after this spammer, to say the least. He has quite a ] (all trace back to New York city) with something like over 200 edits between them, all of which took ''forever'' to clean up. The problem is, the spamming, which has gone for for over 3 months, continues to this day. The user has been warned and blocked endlessly, and continues to ignore the warnings. It involves the site *.ibtimes.com. I would appreciate it if anyone could help remove any last mentions of it from the legit articles (e.g., the 9 mentions we had out of 215 that weren't spam): so we can see the site blacklisted (I'm convinced that any benefit from using it is outweighed by the problem of spam from these guys). Either that, or someone could write a letter to the ISP or the company. I would do it, but I'm short on time and I'm not sure when I'll be back on here. Thx. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Can someone look into this? ==

A blocked user, {{user|Knowpedia}}, requested my assistance , but I don't have any time at the moment to look into this. The user had previously been a responsible editor, but I"m unaware of recent circumstances. ] ≠ ] 11:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Not too sure, you may wish to ignore this request. ] 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why was this described in the block log as a "vandalism-only account"? That seems inaccurate. I've left a note at the blocking admin's talk page. ] 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:PRODding other people's User pages and wiping out an existing User page with a Welcome template look like vandalism, to me. ]|] 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Interesting situation because while those PROD, etc were definitely vandalism, it appears the rest of Knowpedia's edits were reasonably good faith. I think at this point an indef is probably a bit harsh though there may be circumstances here that I'm not aware of.--] 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, I don't disagree that those edits were vandalism. It's the vandalism-only that I'm questioning. As Isotope23 says, if there are other circumstances than fine, but if there's a discrepancy between what's described in the log and what appears to have happened then it makes sense to investigate. ] 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

*It was blocked in relation to a VandalProof tool abuse report. It was using VandalProof to tag user pages as CSDs, prod them, so on so forth. Betacommand revoked the user's access and they were blocked. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::That's not what ] says Peter. You appear to be confusing the "test" speedy deletion tagging of an article (] ), with the later {{tl|prod}} of three user pages. There may be contribs which have been deleted, but what's visible seems the sort of thing that merits a short (or even not-so-short) sharp block. ] ] 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have shortened the block to one week with consent of MrDarcy, the blocking admin. Please keep an eye on this user; I will too. ] 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Block review Breathe Reprise ==

*{{userlinks|Breathe Reprise}} blocked for a week for stalking {{user|Brookie}} - possibly related to {{userlinks|Captaindansplashback}} part of an ongoing stream of attacks on Brookie. Other disruption includes ]. I was thinking more in direction indefinete ban, but I let someone else decide that.

*In the process I came across {{userlinks|"moo" she said}} which I indef'd as an account created for the purpose of disruption. ] 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Another Linda Christas content pusher ==

Can we get a sock check on ] who's currently at large on ]. He's extremely determined that a provably bogus quote be kept in the article even though it doesn't appear in the transcript of the interview in question. Thanks! - ] 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, his Talk page was a red link. I've now explained 3RR to him. ]|] 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Er, yeah. Should have done that. I'm of the opinion that all Christas content comes from a single person (paging Ronald Bernard), though, so there seemed little point in posting pointers on the talk page. - ] 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::My message says that I am assuming good faith, but let him know I'm not stupid. :) ]|] 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:He should have been blocked on sight. This one is a notorious fraud/spammer of us, with many socks that have been blocked. I would do it, but I'm a non-admin. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Can someone close this AfD please ==

] has been a circus since it started, I think it is time to close, but I participated in it so cannot close it myself. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*shudder*</nowiki> A webcomic AfD... has anyone else noticed AfDs getting more and more insanely argumentative lately? ] <small>]</small> 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::It is because the webcomic posted the AfD on it's forum and told everyone to come vote. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not just that one. I've seen a lot of others go crazy when they should be really easily dealt with. (] that I mentioned on here previously - SPAs all over the place, guidelines and policies be damned, and so on.) Is it a full moon or something? ] <small>]</small> 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Q: ''Comment, what evidence do we have that this webcomic is gaining in popularity?''
::::A: ''Common sense alone should garner the growing popularity given it's increase feature in the Joystiq polls''
::::Priceless! -- ] 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Closed, with a rationale that probably took longer to write than it deserved. I tried to be kind. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Nicely done. ] <small>]</small> 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Good closing, way to educate. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::An exemplary closing. I'll have to try and summon the time and/or patience for something like it next time I see a mess like that. ] 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I looked at that F@NBOY$ AfD page for deletion just a couple of days ago, along with the web page that encouraged readers to submit keep, and it seemed like an unfair AfD. When looking back at the AfD, I wasn't sure if the people writing Keep, actually wanted to keep it, or just obeying the webpages authors views. Great Job on deleting that article. It needed to go! Thanks much again! ]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Thanks, all. Experience on ] indicates that a really clear closing rationale helps enormously in cases likely to be disputed, especially if the subject comes up again in a year when things have changed. Hopefully this won't get to DRV until something ''has'' changed, as I think I made it clear enough for now that the case is currently pretty hopeless. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm they made a commic about us. However anyone who has ever clicked the wrong link on commons will know that wikipedians do have nads and are aparently rather proud of them.] 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

==] and ]==
Should we allow advocacy WikiProjects? This doesn't seem to be the reason we are here. ]|] 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Ummm, well, it is directly related to the ongoing running of wikipedia. But it's not realy a project, it's a narrowly focused discussion. Perhapse merging them and moveing it to WP:CENT would be better? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Aaaaaargh! No! There is ''endless'' precedent for not having, creating, keeping, encouraging or permitting Wikiprojects which advocate ''one side'' of a debate. All it does is polarise. It doesn't help that one of these had only three edits, one of which was from Greg Kohs. A meta-debate on meta-advertising, whether, and in what form, and so on, is fine, of course. Kohs seems to have interpreted it as implying we should have ads in mainspace though... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

] is pretty long running and pretty harmless. Well unless you want adds on wikipedia of course. A bit like ]. Any attempt to delete it would be somewhat silly and likely fall foul of the disruption clause. In short I don't think we need any more drama right now.] 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Exactly, so it's harmless to those that agree with it. As JzG said, there is longstanding precedent that one sided advocacy is not a good thing. WP:CSB is totally different because it is directly working on improving the project by fixing a current problem. Obviously Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Yes ads is Pointy, but the point is actually valid. You can't disallow one, while keeping the other side. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Ha, well, I'd like to see who'd be willing to slit their throat and put it up for ] :P. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::*I would. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, even for wikipedia-related issues. There are much better and far less divisive ways to go about this than silly advocacy wikiprojects. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Please back up that claim with evidence. Remember the wikiproject did atchive it's initial aims.] 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Which doesn't mean it was the right, or or best way to do it, nor even that it doesn't cause more damage than good. The only reason I wouldn't put it up for MfD is I think there'd be way too much ILIKEIT and not enough application of policy. But do let me know if someone does. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::If you think there are better ways name them.] 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::There don't have to be better ways to do it for it not to be something that we want to have here (ie not meet our policies and goals). But a non partisan factual discussion of the pro's and con's of accepting advertising would be better than the current AVOID ADS BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY type of thing currently there. But do we even need that? Meta is more the place for that type of thing. Personally I think it's amusing people are willing to let mirrors get advertising income on their work, but not the Wikimedia Foundation. At any rate policy is fairly clear that partisan things like this are not what we are here for, and I would say the same thing about a similar page for the opposing view. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*I dont think that ] is very ambiguous about this. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Any interpritation that rules out the no ads wikiproject would also likey impact this board.] 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Why? --] (<big>]]</big>) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::First allow Wizardry Dragon to put forth his interpritation of the frist Pillar.18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Deleting personal information posted by a vandal ==
An anonymous vandal appears to have posted some very detailed personal information about someone in the ] article. The edit has already been reverted, but the information still exists in the . Can an administrator remove that edit for real? ] 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've handled it temporarily by moving it to a subpage and deleting the details there, but in the future such information should be directed to those with ] (and more discretely :P ) so that it can be removed permanently from the history. I'll see if I can find an oversight to handle the leftovers. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Canvassing for a non-Misplaced Pages related poll? ==

See . —''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:That's a nono, user warned. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Definitely, I'd suggest reverting his edits and deleting the user subpage--or at least MFDing it. —''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hmmm, NOT violations are not speediable, I created a mfd here ]. Perhaps someone else may think of this as advertising and speedy it, I am not sure myself. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, G11 could cover it. —''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:You convinced me. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== {{vandal|Spawnopedia}} ==

This user has been indef-blocked for ] violations, incivility, and abusiveness. Some of us suspect he is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but the ] did not confirm that. Thus, I'm wondering about his article ], which is also rather a BLP violation. Without checkuser confirmation I suppose it can't be deleted as ], but I'd propose deletion under G10. I'd rather not do it myself since I'm already involved, however. Thanks. ] 23:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty clear from the subjects of the articles the two chose to edit, and their aggressive discussion style, that they were the same person. But Spawnopedia got blocked serially by three different admins, anyway. :) ]|] 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Given that the article was apparently written and pasted in one sitting, has anyone checked it for copyvio? ] 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::It is, and is now tagged for speedy deletion, but it's older than 48 hours. ] ] 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Gone. ] 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I deleted it. I doubt that ] was planning to take advantage of the grace period to request relicensing from the actual author. ] 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. Also, to Angus: note that the 48-hour thing is no longer part of the copyvio policy (there was a Jimbo order a while back). ] 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Pay-per-edit? ==

Just dropping a note. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Hiring an independent source to repair inaccuracies seems like a fine way to avoid conflict of interest, if that was really the deal. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Jimbo has stated, and I agree, that this is a very unethical practice. It should be discouraged. Very strongly. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Well, if Jimbo said it then that is another matter... ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::I quote:
{{cquote|Any potential customers of MyWikiBiz are warned that paying someone to write an article for Misplaced Pages is very strongly frowned upon by the community. Policy in this area is still evolving, because we have recently come to understand how serious this problem can be. I personally strongly recommend against hiring MyWikiBiz or any similar "consultants" to help you get a listing in Misplaced Pages. This is counterproductive and unethical.--Jimbo Wales 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)}}
::Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo. The whole point of Misplaced Pages is that we are all volunteers, who are in this just for the love of it. We have no vested interests in this project, we have nothing to gain and nothing to lose (besides an off-wiki life ;). Paying someone to edit Misplaced Pages for you is absurd. Besides, wouldn't this make the blogger Microsoft's ]? And I don't think hiring meatpuppets will circumvent ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Boy, I thought Guy was joking last week about not getting paid. You other sysops aren't getting the anonymous deposit of $5,000 (USD) from a numbered Cayman Island account each month? ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::*I knew there was more to it when I didn't pass my RFA last week... so who got the extra cash? AH! HA! It was you wasn't it? (eyes turning left ... then right) Seriously though, what would be wrong, if considering I am a notable enough subject, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc... lets say ]. And I wanted to pay a student to make sure my article was well balanced per wiki policy... or even to start an article on my bio. Perhaps, he may even defended the article on my bio from being edited or having information that may be libelious and negative to not only my political campaign but my life as well. If someone can obviously argue his way through the system, such as lawyers often does for their DUI clients, then I see no reason why we (an experienced wikipedian) can't be payed. Perhaps my hidden skills as an expert writer, lawyer, or something else will help propogate my POV. Perhaps a real paid lawyer could give me a fair representation during my debates. Perhaps a well experience wikipedian will know how to contour the rules in this persons favour. Remember every article is full of POVs (see the quote on my user page). I'm not saying we should keep the information, but if Microsoft wants to spend 10'000 $ during the launch of Windows Vista to make sure that certain POV are well sourced and properly reference as per wikipolicy, I'll make sure to argue it the best I can per my knowlege and experience in advocacy at AMA and as per my education. Jimbos opinion is exactly the same as mine. It's one man's opinion. --] 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::P.s.: It's funny you quote WP:COI. That "guideline" says "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;" however as an independant contractor writing for an organisation, technically, I would not be related to the company. I obviously wouldn't be arms lenght but technically, I wouldn't be editing an article related to my organization. --] 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::]. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*People who take advocacy as you do make me question my membership in the AMA. What part of unethical is hard to get your mind around? Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
**LOL, Well... where do I start.... (self referene back to my above comment? nah). Well, in general, being a prosecutor (attacking), I think, doesn't require much imagination, but being a defence lawyers requires a lot more imagination. ie.: He might have been here, he migth have been there, we could done this instead, the wikirule might have meant this, etc... (oops! Advocates aren't lawyers that's true.) Anyways, being an advocate is about the same because you are somewhate making a choice to defend the other side, all while remaining still technically being honest and ethical. However, again, it always requires, a lot more imagination to defend someone. "There is always another way of seeing things or the possibility of another solution to what is being alleged." Surely, and I mean this as a compliment, your ] still has some imagination to remain an advocate and undestand that there is really nothing unethetical about arguing other possibilities!!! How else would we protect the right of the trully innocent wikipedians! ;) (smiles) (Don't worry, like the Bernado case, a good defense lawyer eventually releases even incriminating videos) p.s.: good one Bbatsell! --] 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::A few things here.
:::*COI is a guideline, and has next to no teeth. (All it says is try to avoid them)
:::*The whole point of Misplaced Pages ''isn't'' about the "love of it", but is about writing an encyclopedia.
:::*I thought the whole treatment of the MyWikiBiz scenario was an absolute farce, and involved drawing up some of the worst guidelines ever. (It involved the paid party writing articles off wiki for other unrelated users to copy over, which pretty much meant in was incredibly hard to trace compared to say drawing up articles in the userspace or AFC)
:::*I have no qualms over ].
:::*I believe that you can be paid to write something an still maintain a neutral encyclopedic stance, even if you are being paid by an involved party.
:::*I believe that if we maintain a high level of accountability of paid-edits they can be beneficial to Misplaced Pages. And a lot ''less'' damaging than the hordes of drive by vanity anon spam that we get.
:::*Having your firm/services connected to the use of a paid-editor is a hell of a lot less damaging for your publicity than having crap erroneous articles about your firm/services.
::::]]] 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:For a similar situation, see the . - ]]] 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::I don't really see paying someone to write an article about your buisness to be any better or worse than doing it yourself. If you are notable enough and its not written like an advert noone will ever know and it will probablly stick. Otherwise you will have wasted your money and possiblly caused yourself other problems (like seeing the deletion debate for your article as the first result for a google search on your name). ] 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I personally don't quite agree with Jimbo's stance on this. While I understand somewhat his opposition to the MyWikiBiz, and even agree with it partially, this is somewhat different IMHO. Microsoft appear to have down this in a fairly resonably way, approaching a blogger who I presume was considered fair and neutral, not someone who wrote about Microsoft the best company in the world all the time. Their conditions clearly didn't require any level of performance and as this blogger wasn't running a business, it seems far less likely they would care much whether they kept their hirer happy. Indeed, as a blogger with a reputation to keep, it would seem not that likely IMHO. Definitely it's far better then the goodness knows how many companies who have employees doing it on company time. Perhaps MS should have done this via the ] or ] and gone for FA or something ] 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, this story has reached the front page of cnn.com, so it seems to be getting a lot of attention... ] 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== My first AFD closure (as non-admin) per ] ==

This article, ], is my first AFD closure as a non-admin. A peer review on how I did would be greatly appreciated. I closed the AFD, merged the information to the new article and redirect to that article. It feel like, assides from the the fact that I didn't blank and redirect the discusion page ], like I left something out. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --] 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Good job on being bold! However, you might want to have left this for an admin to sort out because there were a number of ''delete'' motions. As ] says, "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." It say this was kind of a close call due to previous AfDs. Anybody else have any comments? ]] 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:That looks to me like a fair close, but in the future, I'd really recommend holding off on closing something that is that borderline. Not because you can't do it correctly, but because it tends to cause more problems than it solves. If all of AfD is that backlogged, then I'd drop a note on WP:AN and if it's just one article drop a note on an admin you know to be around. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you! In the future, I'll make sure they are a little more obvious (ie. something like 16 merge/redirect, 2 delete, 2 keep). Maybe the lenghty little conclusion explaining how I came to the decision was a good hint that it may be ambiguous. But then again I though it helped explain how it was unambigous. Thank you again, for your constructive comments. --] 03:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

'''Notice''': '''Help'''! I was hopping to simply do the changes as per the request. But I suddenly noticed that . Which leaves me wondering if this doesn't go against the spirit of the decision from the AFD, that it be merged vs deleted. I figured I should stay at, ironically, "arms lenght" on this one. But my gut is telling me that it didn't have enough sources and the editor is removing the inform to keep his POV instead of finding sources (which I know exist). Good luck! I'm like I said. I think I should leave this one up to someone else. Its a sad story.--] 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

: Oh Pat, you've waded in with both feet again, haven't you? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Something about climbing structures and Spiderman suits comes to mind again... :) ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Request to close old RfC ==
{{article|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus}} had no edits since 30 December and no discussions since 25 December. It was archived on , as per ] ''Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances:'': ''If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.'' and ''The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.'' which were fullfilled as the dispute has progressed to ''both'' mediation and arbitration. I have filed some closing remarks on the discussion today, as I considered the RfC closed - it was however unarchived by a user who is ] and who wrote ]. I'd like if somebody could review this case and decide if this can be archived or not; I consider this matter closed as I don't believe RfC should be used as some 'black lists of greviances against a user'.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Again, Piotrus? Why can't you just talk and run to various boards all the time? --] 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::It would also be nice if somebody could deal with the harassment above, it's getting tiresome.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Are you requesting someone to block your opponent again? Tiresome indeed. --] 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*Really Piotrus, this is getting very ]y. Please desist. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
**Decist from what? It was Irpen who 'unarchived' my RfC (and it was not me who archived it).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Holly s&*%$, I can't even save my comments because of edit conflicts... this is a fisty subject isn't it. You may want to take a look at ], open a case, and perhaps an advocate such as myself will be able to help you out. Send me an email once you've done this if you wish for me to help advocate your cause. --] 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I was the person who originally tried to close the RFC, but, frankly, it's not worth fighting over. --] 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:It is indeed improper to close an RFC when you are the subject of it, Piotrus - it should probably remain open for a longer time as the original closure by Ideogram has been contested. However, we really don't need all the comments here about Piotrus being on a campaign to get you blocked, Irpen. Can we please be civil on ], of all places? This nitpicking between the two of you is disruptive. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
**I didn't close the RfC. It was done by another user. I just object to reopening it as it has progressed to mediation/ArbCom (and the rules state it should be archived in such case).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*Piotrus, this is the, what, fourth board you've posted on about this, at least? It's starting to get annoying and disruptive, please desist. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
**This is the first and only board I posted in relation to closing and unclosing of my RfC. Please list other boards that I raised this issue on - I am not aware of them. If I indeed did so, I will apologize and go see a doctor about my apparent memory loss; however if I didn't do so I am expecting an apology.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
***Piotrus, this is the fourth in a succession of boards where you and Irpen have dragged your conflict into. I'm not entirely blaming you, because it's both your fault, but you're both skirting blocks for disruption. The second step in Dispute Resolution is to disengage. I suggest you try that, now. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
****Ah, so you are talking about that larger conflict. That would be third public board by my count (WP:RFI, WP:ANI, WP:AN, am I missing the 4th?). But anyway I indeed said all I wanted to; I leave it to the community to judge what if any actions should be taken against any users involved in this conflict, and now I will take yours and others' advice, step into the sidelines of this and try to relax.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
(Edit-conflict in response to Piotrus) The to re-close it, I mean. Things like this get iffy in any situation when someone tries to deal with something that concern them - it's best to leave it to others. For now it's probably best to just let time take its course. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed - which is why I posted a comment here for others to review that matter, and take appopriate actions (close it or don't close it, but comment on the issue).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

==WP:RFI submitted for deletion==
I submitted ] for deletion for the very similar reasons why ] is now deleted. I think this is worthy to be announced here. --] 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*Unless the server cache is acting up, it looks like you copied the instructions to MfD listing to the top of the page instead of the actual listing notice. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== RfC deletion request ==

Re: ]

Quoting the standard instructions at the top of the RfC page: "In order to remain listed at ], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute with a ''single'' user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>."
: Because ] has rescinded his certification of this dispute, which leaves this dispute with only one endorser, and because time has passed the 48-hour deadline cited above, this RfC needs to be deleted. Please look into this. More importantly, it appears this RfC was directed at Mr. Wolfer as a personal attack, abusing the system for that purpose.<br><br>] appears to be the culprit in the ongoing dispute, totally ignoring consensus and engaging in a purge of Ayn Rand across the lists of Misplaced Pages. I've been working a lot with lists over the past year, and I've never seen anything like this - he shows a complete disregard for the consensus generated on talk pages and plows forward with item removals even when this course of action lacks consensus. See also next request below. &nbsp; ''''']''''' 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC deleted. Thank you. &nbsp; ''''']''''' 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Request for enforcement of consensus ==

Consensus is being ignored on ]. Removals of items have been made which lack consensus. Please look into this, and enforce the consensus, however you may interpret it. I have refrained from edit warring, and am instead requesting that an administrator intervene and determine the proper course of action here. Thank you. &nbsp; ''''']''''' 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Just to give the opposite end, Buridan, and other editors, hold the position that items were ''added'' without consensus. It's all a matter of perspective.

:And the main discussion is taking place at ]. From there down, it's all about whether Ayn Rand (or specifically the link: ]) is very important within philosophy or not. (I'm just an eye-rolling observer) --] 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:: True, the opposite ''position'' is that the links were added, but in the case of the ], '''''they weren't added:''''' they were part of the '''''' when it was created in November of 2005, and have been on there ever since. On the talk page of the list, there is no consensus to remove the items. I'd like to get the items restored without an edit war, which is why I've posted a request here. &nbsp; ''''']''''' 08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

==Christos coin infomercial==
Strange. Would an uninvolved administrator please review ]? What I find most odd about this spam magnet of sorts is that the article was created this month, yet it has cleanup tags that date back to July 2006. ] 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:It was a fork of ]; I redirected it there and protected it just in case. We should probably keep an eye on that article in case it becomes a spam magnet itself. ] 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Now I've listed ] at AfD, after a second thought. ] 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
==User:Planb11==
{{vandal|Planb11}}, having previously vandalized such articles as ] , is now trolling at ], arguing for the inclusion of . ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Now indefblocked by someone else. Looking at the above image is strongly ''not'' recommended. ] 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] on main page news? ==

Please see ] and ]. I believe this article to be ready for the main page. A lot of editors collaborated during and after the address to create a decent and accurate article. --] 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. I took approximately more than an hour just to get to that state, and as time passes, the article will keep getting better at a faster pace.--''''']''''' <sup>]</sup><small>]</small> 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:: ] is the place to discuss this. I'm not sure it fits the ] though. --] 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Interiot. Posted it ]. --] 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism from IP ] ==

A user at this IP has been inserting spam into the ] article repeatedly since October. I reverted some of those edits today and reported the vandalism to AIV. Block notices were then placed on the user's page, but the user wasn't actually blocked. Some time later, 3 more edits were made to insert spam into the same article. Those edits too were reverted, and I again reported the IP to AIV. As it stands now, this user still has not been blocked. Is there a reason why this is so? Have I done anything untoward in my edits to the user's talk page or my reports to AIV? ] 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:''06:17, 24 January 2007 Bbatsell (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "24.122.127.118 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Spam)''
:---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:As above, I have blocked for a week. {{tl|test5}}s were added to the user's talk and userpage (now deleted) by a non-administrator, which probably led to the confusion. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Ludvikus community ban ==
I have been asked, by several editors on my talk page and by email, to commence an ] on ]. However, I think that there may be enough evidence to implement a ] for ]:
* His editing of ] is tendentious. The talk page amply demonstrates that there is little support for his views. Furthermore his affectation of martyrdom is tedious.
* He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. His actions on ] make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on ] clearly had a strong influence on Peter's removing himself from the Misplaced Pages. His comments on ] are another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts, "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors".

For the purposes of a community ban, what counts as "a handful of admins or users"? If another admin could take a look and advise, I would be grateful ] 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

* ] has a single 48 hour block in his block log, and that is from ]. I can see that he has many complaints on his user page, but it would be a bad thing to give someone a community ban just because they are in a small minority. If he continues to be disruptive, and starts violating policy extensively, then we could reconsider, but right now I '''oppose'''. Incidentally, it might be an idea to drop him a note on his talk page to tell him about this discussion. ] 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:* So informed on his talk page. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:An RfC is the way to go. ] 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Since ] is attempting a reconciliation, I will leave the article in his hands. However my expectation is that we will hear more about Ludvikus. ] 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From ], ''Why Misplaced Pages Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism''
<blockquote>...One has only to compare the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Misplaced Pages's Philosophy section. From the point of view of a specialist, let's just say that Misplaced Pages needs a lot of work.<p>

There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Misplaced Pages project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Misplaced Pages.</blockquote>
This is another case in point. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have implemented the ban, then asked the questions. This would have provided the needed support to the ''competent'' editors. My bad. ] 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think that it's worth correcting the false impression that some editors seem to have gained that the problem lies merely in Ludvikus being in a minority. The main problem is that he makes a vast number of low-quality edits, which he defends with a volubility and aggression that make it difficult if not impossible for most other editors to get a word in or to edit sensibly. He makes little sense on the Talk page (aside from his sarcasm, bluster, and personal attacks), but he does so at inordinate length. He only has one block for two reasons: first, the blocking rules don't really cover the sort of disruption in which he specialises, though it's worse and more frustrating than much that is clearly blockable; secondly, just about the only admins who have any interest in the area are already editing at the article.
:Incidentally, I had various run-ins with Sanger before Misplaced Pages was created, and didn't think much of him &mdash; but I have to agree with his analysis as quoted above. The ] article, which should be one of Misplaced Pages's flagship articles, is a laughing stock. As a professional philosopher myself, I find it deeply embarrassing --] (]) 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::May I also draw your attention to this edit on Jimbo's page.
----
At this point and time I'm seeking:
*An apology from Administrator ] for his disruptive use of the ] to show, call, or shout, "SHIT" at me with it on at least two separate occasions.
*I suspect it may have possibly been an ego confrontation that sparked the disruption.
*If he aplogizes to me much progress can be had.
*I am perfectly capable of letting by-gones be by-gones.
*I sincerely hope it is possible to restore good faith between us. He is the best writer I have come accross on Misplaced Pages - and appears quite intelligent. I only hope he is capable of a reconciliation, as I believe I am. I hope he also has the security to acknowledge my intelligence as well. I'm hoping we can both be equally forgiving men, as regards one another.
*I urge you all to assume Good Faith, which is Misplaced Pages policy - as we all love Misplaced Pages, as well as Jimbo, one of its genius founders.
:Sincerely, --] 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Protection ==

Excuse me for inquiring, but as ] is now on the front page, shouldn't it be protected? Shouldn't cascading protection have already done this? ] 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Cascading protection has taken care of it. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 08:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. It only shows up when you try to edit the page. ] 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== ]'s annoyances ==

This user (] (now ])) has to be stopped. A long time ago, we were having a long argument about heights and weights of ]-characters. There are many different versions of the heights and weights of these characters. Now JuJube has removed these Heights and Weights because this is too difficult to verify. Other users have asked him why the heights of these characters have been removed and JuJube blames me and says that these things have been removed because of '''my''' "constantly editwarrings". But to me, he said that the heights have been removed because this is too difficult to verify. Well, JuJube harasses me and I'm afraid that if other users would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter Characters that JuJube would blame ma again and I'm also afraid that he would add a sockpuppet-shield to those users who would add the heights. And these problems are very frustrating for me. Please do something against ] and I'll be very happy. Thanks. ] 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

*About my old username. Well worked under the username and then I've created a new account because it was too difficult to understand the "changing username" link because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not very well. Well, I've created a new account because my old username is a name of an existing character and everytime when I type my old username into the google-web machine, my contributions also appear and also JuJube's sentences about my old username also appear. Please don't forget to tell JuJube that he should use my current username in any cases. Well, I've left you a comment because JuJube has to be stopped, as I mentioned. ] 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:*I'm also helpless and I can't defend myself against JuJube because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. So I ask you to help. ] 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
* JuJube has been here a long time and he has a point about the difficulty of verifying these figures. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Another dodgy AfD ==

] needs closing with kindness. The artist himself is a serial vanity poster and a problem, but there is at least one other editor who I think could, with patience, be useful to the project (Huntstress), and I'm trying to help her (presumably) along. I suspect that this is a "one day but not yet" subject, but the whole argument is so infuriating that my blood pressure rises every time I try to assess the merits of it, and in any case I !voted on it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Done. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 16:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Thanks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Good close, and good explanation. ] <small>]</small> 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: I can't say that our own "Lee Nysted Experience" has been terribly edifying, mind... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::And of course it's already been reposted and deleted again, with ] stating ] (in Proto's archived messages, which I should note was something ] did in *my* archive recently) that the article won't be going away while regularly deleting notices from her talk page and reposting editorial comments about the article. These people just do *not* get it. ] <small>]</small> 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

==Proposal to revamp==
As the ] goes, it seems ] is going to follow the ill-famed ] into history. There are almost no strong objections among the voters but some concerns were raised about making general reordering of the house. Here is the idea.

The first thing would be to rename ] to ] (]) since that's already what it is. Not every action that requires immediate block are limited to simple vandalism. If the user goes apeshit posting horrific racist attacks all over talk pages, creates inflammatory usernames or does similarly blatant and obvious disruption, such user should be blocked on the spot similar to the blanking, penis or moving vandals. Such reports are already posted to WP:AIV and are acted upon by its watchers. The message on top of the renamed board should clearly state that only complaints against such blatant abuse should be brought there and the reports on the established content writers should be never placed there (not to repeat the painful PAIN and RFI experience).

The second step that would reduce the load of WP:ANI, the concern some users expressed, would be a sub-board where all the user complaints that don't belong to WP:RTB will be posted. The message on top of such board should say that no block should be imposed on a user before at least one full hour commences between the filing of the complaint and the blocking action. Such delay would allow to gauge something close to a consensus on whether the block is warranted. Since urgent requests will all go to WP:RTB, there will be no harm in one hour delay. Of course ] will continue to run its course. Also, blocking per individual admin discretion case by case is allowed and no one is going to change that.

Opinions welcome, --] 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*The idea has its merits. My only concern at the moment is the further fragmenting of the noticeboard and the creation of another layer of bureaucracy which might be confusing to new users (who, for that matter, might not realize that they're in a dispute with an established editor). This almost sounds like the return of Quickpolls, but I'm certainly game for an attempt. ] ] 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*We don't need WP:RTB. That's what ] is for, isn't it? There's not really a backlog I can see. ] (]) 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:* Yes. AIV is not just about blocks, it could be for urgent page protection, spam blacklist requests or some such. And ''then'' we block them... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*The only issue I have is that blocks are preventative, not punitive. As such, immediate action should be taken by an admin when a block falls under the blocking policy. To impose a time restriction is to tie a hand behind a back in ''preventing'' future disruptions. Other than those sorts of details, I've long thought AIV should be renamed and the reorganization could be very useful. Why not set up a talk page and work out a format that'll encompass all the guidelines on blocking, go from there? ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::To supplement: sysops have three special tools (block, protect, delete). We have a specific process for requesting protection and deletions; there is no such process for blocking. If you follow through the logs for protection and deletion you can relatively trace where, if you are curious, the decision came from. Blocks are much more indiscriminate, from username to vandalism to 3rr to socks...a format would be nice for non-sysops to post their requests in a system that doesn't span five different community spaces. I don't want more process imposed on blocking, just a system for admins to follow up on user requests. Reiterating that: no more process, we already have it spelled out. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::Request to Block also makes it sound like the place to come iof you have a grievance and want someone else blocked. ]] 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Good point. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup>

== ] ==
Can someone please tell this user to stop adding tags that invite a user to remove key information from an article or reduce it to a hollow, should-be-non-existent shell. He acts like he owns wikipedia by constantly adding unnecessary tags to articles. I also think that he and ] may be sockpuppets. ] 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
* ], second on the left down the hall. Mind the ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Besides... it appears he is adding "unsourced" tags to articles that are unsourced... we should be encouraging editors to ].--] 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== Something hinky going on? ] ==

This page ] just got created (there no history) and it looks suspiciously like an old page someone has recreated. (Including a Cleanup tag dated September 2006) I cannot see deleted pages, and since there's no history, I have no idea what the deal is, but I thought an Admin might wanna have a look at it. ] 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:It turns out it's a duplicate of an existing article. Probably just a mistake. I deleted the duplicate and redirected to the original. ] 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== The Lee Nysted experience ==

{{vandal|Lee Nysted}} has been here for a short while, also as {{vandal|Nyslee}}. He created {{article|Lee Nysted}} four times, and we've also had {{article|The Lee Nysted Experience}} and {{article|Nysted Music}}, AfDs at ] and ]. Vanity content has also been deleted from his user page and his talk page.

Here is a perfect example of his fundamental misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is here for.

It has been established, to a high degree of probability, that no sources currently exist on which we can base an article. Every one he's brought so far turns out to say a whole lot less than he claims, and a whole lot less credibly. He's been consistently argumentative and vexatious. He's now going round . Our inclusion criteria have been patiently explained to him a number of times, he seems to regard them as a minor obstacle to be worked around in pursuit of the greater goal of an article on himself, not any kind of guiding principle. He has two other editors working exclusively on Nysted-related content, {{vandal|Huntress829}} and {{vandal|Smdewart}}. All show an identical pattern of wiping Talk pages, but they probably are meatpuppets not sockpuppets.

So: Misplaced Pages's Lee Nysted Experience has been canonical ], and if we hadn't already coined that term we'd have had to for this guy. It is more than apparent that he is ''desperate'' to get an article on Misplaced Pages, and if he ever did it's equally apparent that he would ] it. Forgive the tetchy tone, but I have had enough of him, and if anyone ever offers me one of his CDs free and for nothing I wouldn't even use it as a beermat. I propose that if he doesn't shut up in the next - oh, ten minutes or so, that we ban his argumentative vainglorious ass. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Ah yeah, I blocked his sock a while back. That's why I remember this guy. I'd support one '''last''' reminder of the purpose of wikipedia. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

== East of Eden ==

Hi all. I've seen a situation which I believe requires a review from some admins.

{{User|Catbird222}} has edited {{article|East of Eden}}, claiming multiple times to be the copyright holder of both the book and the upcoming film, and has removed information from East of Eden which s/he believes to have "infringed" on his/her copyright . At first I thought this was most likely trolling, but when investergating further into this, I found that there was a MedCab case open, which Catbird commented on. edit has prompted me to bring it to a wider attention, as I'm not sure as to believe Catbird or not.

I have left a message on Catbirds talk informing him of this discussion, and one on the talk page of {{User|BradPatrick}} also, as Catbird says that Brad knows about this already. I'd like to add that I'm not comfortable with the fact that we have no hint on who this editor is (as it makes it impossible to verify if they are telling the truth}, or who they work for, nor am I happy with the ammount of Legal jargon being thrown around in his/her pervious edits. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever they are, they should be banned for legal threats. ]|] 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have indef. blocked ], whose name and choice of articles to edit was clearly made in order to mock CatBird222 (the name itself violates the Username policy). ]|] 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Good block. ] is now blocked as well. There may be more imposter accounts around connected to this. ] 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

: The question is whether we consider these things to be "A polite, coherent complaint". Because ] emphasizes that "'''A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks''' is not a "legal threat"." I'm not convinced at all that it is an accurate or reasonable complaint, but it has seemed to be civil.

: They definitely should be directed to ] - if all of us are out in left field, and they are justified, they'll get what they are asking for, and if they are being ridiculous, they will get told politely why they are wrong. Pointing them to that is a decent idea regardless of whether or not they are blocked. ] 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::I've added a link to the Article Problems/Copyright section you mentioned above on Catbird's talk page. It should also be noted that CatBird only edits Steinbeck related articles, including {{Article|Lew Hunter}}, where s/he removes the mention of a certain Megan Steinbeck . {{IPUser|152.163.101.5}} then re-added the name, while also adding "stop removing my name, GS" . Not sure if that's important... ] <sup>]</sup> 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Unless I am confused, the issue here is that Catbird222 wants to use Misplaced Pages to publish claims that a third party, ], has , and is removing the trivia section from ] because the recording artists listed there infringed on copyright by mentioning the book or its author, but is not claiming that any Misplaced Pages article infringes on their copyright. As for ], as far as I know, Catbird222 is not making threats against Misplaced Pages users, just asserting that there are legal issues with third parties. That said, raises ] concerns. Frankly, I don't think that restoring the trivia section in ] is so pressing that we cannot have a conversation about the concerns; ideally one that doesn't involve otherwise unpublished accusations of wrongdoing by third parties. ] 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


==] vandilism from my account==
I recently created a page on the wild beasts, a band from Leeds who are now notable. The band are friends of mine and many a time have I used wikipedia from their house on their computer. One of the statements that I added was that they had just signed a deal with domino records. Infact, this deal has not been officially announced (yes, I understand that this should not have been added as their are no ], however the band took it upon themselves to vandalise the page (probably inadvertidly to remove the domino records statement (they simply blanked the page)), and as I have used their computer previously to use wikipedia, it has been registered that the edits came from my account. Infact, when the edits were made (At 5am UK time!) I was fast asleep in bed. This led to me recieving 2 vandilism warnings and vandilism showing up in my contribs and talk page. Is there any admin interaction that can be done to merge the history of wild beasts and my talk page so they do not show? I totally condone vandalism to wikipedia and to be honest, I'm normally the one giving the warnings. I don't want vandalism being attributed to my account. I'd be really greatfull if you could take a look at this ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think condone is the word you meant. For now I think changing password is the most important option. ] 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
::Did it as soon as I realised what happened ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:::and condone was the wrong word to use - probably should have used despise! ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

==Continuous removal of 3rr warning==
] is continuously removing a 3rr warning that I put on his talk page. I dont know if it is necessary for the warning to be on his talk page for it to be effective, but still, he has disregarded the fact that it is a warning and not an actual punishment. Anyway, I hope someone can talk to him and calm him down.] 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

==]==
I was looking at now-banned ]'s user page, when I noticed the category above that it was a part of. Suspicious, I clicked, and found a bunch of names on it.

While it's a legitimate category (in that it was not created by JossBuckle Swami, but by {{User|Jeffrey O. Gustafson}}), what caught my eye were its members and their edit histories. Though created on October 31, 2006, its members only began adding themselves on January 3rd (including JossBuckle Swami). And while I'm sure most are legitimate editors, the timing, as well as the edit histories and some odd gaps therein some raise red flags for me: not enough for Checkuser, but enough to ask some questions, especially about the first two:

*{{User|Mecredis}}
:Total edits: 2
:Added Cat tag: 8:26, January 3, 2007
:Previous edit: December 10, 2004

*{{User|Sstair}}
:Total edits: 4
:Added Cat tag: 20:51, January 3, 2007
:Previous edit: August 22, 2006

*{{User|Matthew kokai}} -
:Total edits: 226
:Added Cat tag: 05:25, January 4, 2007
:Previous edit: December 14, 2006
:Previous edit to that: October 15, 2006

*{{User|MarkJaroski}} -
:Total edits: 16
:Added Cat tag: 10:19, January 5, 2007
:Previous edit: 20:14, January 3, 2007
:First edit of month: 10:59, January 3, 2007
:Previous edit: March 1, 2006


Suspicious person that I am, I thought I'd bring it here. --] | ] 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC) For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
::Good observations. MFD on the category? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:49, 11 January 2025

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

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 3 2 5
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 7 14
    RfD 0 0 31 15 46
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
      Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

    Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

    This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
    But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
    WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Watch it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Topic ban appeal

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

    I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
      I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
      I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
      This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

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

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

    Andra Febrian report

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

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

    Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

    Cannot draftify page

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

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

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

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

    Remove PCR flag

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

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

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

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

    "The Testifier" report

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

    Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

    repost from archive:

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

    Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

    References

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

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

    Heritage Foundation

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

    Deleted contributions request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

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

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

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

    I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hide this racist edit.

    WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

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

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

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

    96.230.143.43

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

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

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

    Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    StoneX Group Inc.

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

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

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

    Permissions Removal

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

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

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

    Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ftools is back!

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

    👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    My congratulations/condolences. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


    Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Import request

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

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

    Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24

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

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

    Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

    Coordinating arbitrators

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

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

    The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

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

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

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

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