| Revision as of 10:38, 16 November 2024 view sourceSouthasianhistorian8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,293 edits →Persistent IDHT and fabricating Misplaced Pages policy: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:16, 11 January 2025 view source Cactusisme (talk | contribs)195 edits →Import request: @Fram "oh, okay" | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 368 | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |maxarchivesize = 700K | ||
| Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
| {{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
| {{Admin tasks}} | {{Admin tasks}} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | ||
| == |
== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | ||
| {{atop|status=unbanned|result=It has been three days with no serious objections. ] ] 21:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| By request, I'm posting {{np|Min968}}'s request for ] here. As a ], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Min968 was originally blocked as {{np|Ylogm}} (see below) and was de-facto banned under ]. I'm also reposting a follow-up question and response. --] (]) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I, Min968 (Ylogm), would like to request a reconsideration of my block. I now understand the importance of collaborating with other members and how crucial it is to work together to develop Misplaced Pages. I am an introverted person and not good at handling conflicts, which unfortunately led to a heated argument with @] and subsequently being banned without being able to defend myself. I then used a sock account to continue editing, which was a sign of my helplessness and lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation. I acknowledge that it was wrong, and I am committed to permanently stopping using sock accounts and contributing positively, while also respecting the opinions of other members and collaborating with them to further develop Misplaced Pages. Blocks are not punitive. I believe I need to be given an opportunity to correct my mistakes, a chance to contribute to the community. | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| :My 5-year plan if the ban is lifted: | |||
| {{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. | |||
| :# Rewrite articles about the Ming emperors | |||
| :# Improve and write new articles related to the Ming dynasty (my main area of interest) | |||
| :# Enhance some content related to the history of Vietnam and Korea | |||
| :# Correct mistakes and develop projects related to Chinese eras (a project I have started and also where I have made mistakes and stumbled) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| :My behavior on Misplaced Pages: | |||
| :# Adhere to maintaining neutrality and not obstructing the project. | |||
| :# Interact with members in a polite and respectful manner. We are all anonymous, somewhere in this world, and we are all here with the common goal of developing Misplaced Pages. Sometimes there may be mistakes, but we need to maintain good intentions, keep a cool head, and respect each other. All members are human, even those who have made mistakes. | |||
| :# Follow all of Misplaced Pages's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion. | |||
| 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 ].}} | |||
| :Why I chose English Misplaced Pages and requested to be unblocked: I chose English Misplaced Pages simply because it is a large project, widely popular globally, and accessed and used by many people for information. I want to contribute and improve content related to Chinese history, specifically the Ming dynasty, and bring it to a wider readership around the world. Unfortunately, the content related to Chinese history is not well developed and lacks information. I myself have waited for almost 5 years to read articles about Ming emperors, but they have not improved during that time. Therefore, instead of waiting, I want to take action. ] (]) 11:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there a reason you are not appealing this block from the Ylogm account? That will definitely be asked when this appeal is taken to ]. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::When I was blocked before, I didn't know what to do or how to explain things. Usually, I just create a new account to continue editing. When I created this account, I wanted to start fresh with a more positive attitude. And when I was banned on this account, I received positive and enthusiastic guidance from @], so I chose to stick with it instead of Ylogm. ] (]) 03:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I spoke at greater length six months ago on their talk page, so I'll try to be briefer here. If anyone has any further questions for me, let me know. | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Firstly, Ylogm has a track record of worthwhile constructive editing in a highly important topic area (early modern Chinese monarchs) that can particularly benefit from additional motivated contributors. In the time I've been here, Ylogm was the only consistent contributor to many of these articles. In itself, that does not justify being unbanned. However, when they say they have learned from their mistakes and want to continue editing and making contributions here, I do believe them. I '''support''' unbanning them. | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Ylogm was originally INDEF'd for disruptive behavior, namely a lack of adequate communication while undoing edits and otherwise ignoring the editorial concerns of others on articles they were working on. To be clear, I do not think anyone but Ylogm did anything wrong here, but is worth noting that ] was very brief, and the volume of prior communication concerning their conduct was limited—if normally sufficient as fair warning. They did not seem to understand why they had been blocked, which is on them. They then made this situation much worse by socking for a prolonged period, and rightfully earned this community ban. However, I do believe this to be the result of previous negligence, and not malice: if one accepts that they did not understand the social context, their attempted contributions consistently show a clear intention to be constructive during this time. | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not aware that anyone engaged in direct conversation with them about their conduct until March, when ] on their sock ], after initially coming to this conclusion. As they didn't seem to understand, I attempted to explain their situation one-on-one, and they were immediately receptive to this. Their reaction reinforced my belief, and I felt I should be an advocate for their case. Then and now, I would like for them to continue making substantial contributions, if they prove capable of doing so constructively. It shouldn't be surprising then that I was acutely frustrated when it became apparent they did not immediately stop socking following my initial black-and-white dialogue with them at this time—given I had made this an explicit condition of my advocacy for them. If this appeal is not successful, I think this will be the most compelling reason why. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :Even so, after being told they would would have to wait six months before their ban would be reconsidered, I believed them when they said they would do so. Given the comparatively compressed timeline of events where an apparent total lack of understanding had to be rectified, I find it plausible that they were caught in the process of recognizing the full extent of their mistakes for the first time in March. That is a confusing situation coming after months of previous confusions. I can't imagine everyone will come away with this conclusion, but I can only be honest in saying I remain convinced of Ylogm's unalloyed good faith. Now that the previous contingencies have passed, I also believe that they adequately recognize the how and why of their mistakes, and will behave competently in accordance with site policy going forward. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 23:22, 1 November 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''' Given the explicit support of Remsense, the moral support of LlywelynII, the constructive continued editing at Chinese Misplaced Pages, and the fact that they\ underlying issues were merely disruptive, not dangerous, I think it's fair to extend another chance. The one thing I would ask -- though my support is not conditional on it -- is that Min968 voluntarily agree to a one-account restriction from here on out, as I think it would be beneficial for all parties, including Min968. ] (]) 00:57, 2 November 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) | |||
| :'''Support unban'''. We could definitely use this editor in the Ming dynasty space. Last year I stopped reporting their socks because the contributions were constructive. The request is accurate: no one is improving these articles. Let's allow Ylogm / Min968 to help. ] (]) 01:25, 2 November 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> | |||
| :'''Comment''' As blocking admin of the Min968 sock (not the master), I'm staying neutral here. They absolutely had socked in the past, but if the community thinks that there's merit to allowing this user to participate again under the ] I'm fine with that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 05:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''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 unban''' It seems that this editor misunderstood several important aspects of Misplaced Pages editing when they first began, and that was probably exacerbated by lack of deep fluency in the English language at that time. I think that the editor has made great progress since then, and has indicated a genuine seriousness of purpose regarding improving articles about the ] and a commitment to follow policies and guidelines. The only recommendation that I would make is that the editor also focus on the preceeding ] and following ] to help place that Ming history into a broader context for students of Chinese history in the past 800 years. ] (]) 07:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The difference here is that our Yuan and Qing articles have seen relatively more development and improvement by other editors; our Ming dynasty coverage is particularly weak, possibly the weakest of any dynastic period (haven't compared exhaustively: this is my impression).{{pb}}As an aside, since periodisation by dynasty has been so universal in Chinese historiography, and the political situation tended to change dramatically between dynasties (with some exceptions), it is common for people to have subject area expertise in a single dynasty while remaining largely novices in chronologically adjacent dynasties. ] (]) 14:41, 2 November 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) | |||
| :'''Comment''' {{tq|Follow all of Misplaced Pages's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion.}} I find that a pretty suboptimal declaration in an unban request; we don't pick and choose which policies are followed based on our personal opinions about their usefulness, especially in terms of "resolving issues". ] (]) 17:55, 2 November 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) | |||
| ::This is a good point. @], I want to stress a distinction here: the rules that are there in policy are basically the result of tested best common practices, and while dogmatically adhering to their letter is counterproductive, that's not the same thing as "they're not useful". <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this is a translation issue. I'd posit that the intent behind this statement is valuing discussion over mere rules adherence to prevent conflict (otherwise, {{tqq|Instead}} is {{lang|la|non sequitur}}, and {{tqq|Follow all... rules}} immediately disclaimed). I would be interested in hearing {{u|Min968}}'s clarifications on this at their usertalk. ] (]) 00:44, 3 November 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' - See no reason against this request. ] (]) 00:42, 3 November 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) | |||
| {{abottom}} | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Given the result above, would it be possible for an admin to undelete the articles created by Min968 accounts that were deleted per ]? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I undeleted two of them, but then I realized that the appear to be recreating the exact same article (most of their deleted contributions are blue now), so I'm inclined to let them do that rather than use admin tools. ] ] 07:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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 == | |||
| == Theparties unban request == | |||
| {{atop|Open for more than a week without opposition to the unban. Low participation but worth recalling this is a block from over a decade ago (also that reblocks are cheap). Thanks to those who contributed and {{yo|Yamla}} thanks in particular for the clerking and checkuser. | |||
| I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it. | |||
| Per this thread, {{u|Theparties}} is: | |||
| #unblocked and | |||
| #indefinitely topic-banned from ]-related articles, broadly construed. | |||
| Topic ban can be appealed in six months, hopefully on the basis of a record of productive editing in other areas. -- ] (]) 07:28, 10 November 2024 (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. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Theparties}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|23prootie}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| By request, I'm posting {{np|Theparties}}'s request for ] here. As a ], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Theparties was originally blocked as {{np|23prootie}} and claims to no longer have access to that account. They were banned via ]. --] (]) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (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. | |||
| :Hello, I would like to ask administrator to put forward my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for unblock, according to ]. I have been contributing to other Wikimedia projects meanwhile as is recommended for users at unblock requests. | |||
| 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? | |||
| :I learned my lesson. I know I should not evade a ban. And I promise that I would not do that again. I can pprove this by showing that the last time I have been caught, I actually volunteered to be caught. I did not have to admit to be a sockpuppet of 23prootie. But I admitted it showing my sincerity in turning a new leaf. I know it must be difficult to believe me but by showing that I have not ban evaded in the past few months shows that truly my intention is to follow the rules. I have been editing in the Simple English Misplaced Pages for the time being. Working on election articles for the Philippines. Please give me another chance. Please truly allow me to become a better editor. I also want to add tat I cannot use my original username 23prootie because I forgot the password and I do not have an email to connect it with. May this username be my reincarnation for a new and better opportunity to prove myself. | |||
| <small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]? | |||
| :I request that a ] on ]-related articles be instated for me in exchange of being able to edit again on unrelated articles. | |||
| ] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(Rename/usurp request snipped by me, Yamla, see talk page. The reason given by Theparties was "Reason: Forgot the password. No access to email.") | |||
| :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. ] (] | ]) 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'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 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) | |||
| :] (]) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (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 ]. – ] <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'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) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Has realized the mistakes and accepted a topic ban from anything related to the Philippines. That is more than enough. ] (]) 00:45, 3 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Per above. As long they edit unrelated articles for too long, they might appeal topic ban in the future. Welcome back. ] (]) 11:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 43.249.196.179 (again) == | |||
| == Self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee open == | |||
| 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) | |||
| The self-nomination period of the Arbitration Committee elections is ]. The deadline for submitting a candidacy is 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC). ] (]) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors. | |||
| ::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit filter manager request for non-admin == | |||
| : 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) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::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) | |||
| | result = ] ] 03:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Incivility at ] == | |||
| Hello all, there is an ] application open for a non-admin. For information or to participate in the discussion, please see the ]. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 07:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| @] 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) | |||
| == ACE2024 == | |||
| :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In case you haven't noticed, ] is currently listing 3 candidates for the 9 open arbcom seats. What strikes me about the three is that they are all either current or former arbs. What is probably happening right now is what typically happens: there's a bunch of former arbs sitting on their hands and they'll add their names as the nomination window is nearly over. I'm not saying that having former arbs is bad, but in the big picture, we need new blood to keep the thing going. So all of you admins out there, please consider taking a step up and running for arbcom. ] ] 02:57, 8 November 2024 (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. ] ] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll throw my hat in the ring if we get approval to unionize. I think the pay arbitrators get here is substandard compared to that of arbitrators in similar positions on other collaborative editing projects.{{pb | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| }}Seriously though, how can there be 9 open positions? Isn't it typically 6? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's typically either 7 or 8, depending on whether we're electing Tranche Alpha (7) or Tranche Beta (8). This year we're electing Tranche Alpha, so that's 7 positions, but Maxim and Firefly (both elected last year to Tranche Beta) recently resigned, bringing the number of open positions up to 9. --] (]) 08:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ] ] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We could upgrade your boring, basic mop to a Smart Mop<sup>(TM)</sup>, would that do? -- ] (]) 17:30, 8 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *{{U|RoySmith}}'s concerns are really valid. All of the current candidates have already served more than one term within the past 8 years. I really encourage administrators with a year or two under their belt, particularly those who feel comfortable working as part of a team or who have experience with dispute resolution, to give this some thought. This isn't to criticize the experienced hands who have put themselves forward; it is to emphasize that "new blood" is essential for Arbcom to do its best work. ] (]) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC) <small>Full disclosure, recently I was asked to consider running again this year (after about 10 years away), but having just come off the very intense work of the MCDC, I need to do more project-based work and less committee work for a while.</small> | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| *I was going to ask a question this morning about numbers etc, but Roy and Risker have now answered it. I wonder how many editors/admins are in my position — happy to help, a little hesitant given the burnout witnessed from consecutive Committees, somewhat hopeful that 10-12 other good options nominate so they don't have to, but will if numbers stay skinny. This might sound incredibly selfish but ArbCom does not seem like it would be 'fun' in the slightest; at best it could be considered rewarding. It's a big commitment (potentially two years) and that's a lot to ponder when considering throwing one's hat in the ring. ] (]) 09:07, 8 November 2024 (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. ] ] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm in the same place, Daniel. I was an arbitration clerk for two years and I know how much work is involved at some points and how much criticism even the most functional committee receives. That leaves me with mixed feelings. It would help to hear some former arbitrators issue a sales pitch for why it was a rewarding experience. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:24, 8 November 2024 (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) | |||
| **:{{Ping|Liz|Daniel}} To a certain extent, many hands make light work. Obviously most of the committee needs to get involved in the big cases but we only have a few of those per year. You're both experienced admins so taking flak for a necessary but unpopular decision should be nothing new. I've been doing it for a year now and it's not as bad as I imagined so I'd encourage you both to run. If you really hate it, you could always resign at next year's election but new blood is important and so is having an election with enough candidates for it to be meaningful. ] | ] 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::I have enjoyed my experience on ArbCom, even though I have not been the most active. There are many roles within the committee, so members can work in the areas or topics that are most interesting to them. Moving checkuser blocks to the community has lightened our workload to devote more time to other activities. The admin tasks that I think are most similar to working on ArbCom are ], unblock requests and ]: those thinking about running can participate in those areas to see if they like that work. I strongly encourage anyone who is interested in ArbCom to run: I do not regret my decision and I feel like it is a fantastic place to help make Misplaced Pages better for its editors. Even if you are not successful, you can get some ideas on where you can find places to improve your skills on the admin side of Misplaced Pages. If anyone wants to reach out to me they are welcome to send me an email. ] (]) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (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. | |||
| ''*Dracula voice*'' "We need ze blood! Ze fresh blood!" But seriously, yes we do need new folks on the Committee from time to time. I can say that it is one of the best and most rewarding things that I do in my life. It provides a lot of transferable skills. I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. Don't wanna be scrolling mindless social media? Why not try reading Arb discussions! Don't feel like you have to come in as a perfectly formed judicial decision machine. We need the same thing we need in admins: humble people willing to learn. The time commitment is different depending on your style. Some people go in sprints, some run a marathon; ArbCom needs both tortoises and hares to run well. I think the work that ArbCom does is important and really makes a difference. It's not all sunshine and roses, as various guide writers (see ]) have put more eloquently than me, but it's meaningful, engaging work. So if you're on the fence, I really do encourage you to throw your hat into the ring! Or if you know some whippersnapper who'd make a good choice, why not send them a message encouraging them to run? I would have never run if it were not for a community veteran who privately encouraged me to take the leap. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :{{tq|I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing.}} This, 1000%, is such a key selling point for me. I travel for work (far more than I'd like), and while I read Misplaced Pages/discussions/etc. every day, there are some days I just can't edit when travelling. Emails and just being across things are fine, but to sit down and actually edit on a plane or in a hotel just sometimes doesn't happen. Thanks for sharing your experiences CaptainEek, as well as HJ Mitchell and Z1720 above — it is genuinely appreciated. ] (]) 00:33, 9 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::Yes, it's much easier to keep up with emails on a phone than it is to do any serious editing. If you're used to reading and digesting discussion threads in between daily life you'll probably find ArbCom quite manageable. ] | ] 00:47, 9 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *Until the WMF has a dedicated deputy general counsel and transparent budget and procedures for volunteer security/indemnification, I can’t countenance even standing for admin, far less Arbcom, even though I humbly suggest I would bring considerable experience and value to either role. I value my identity, job, and physical safety, and I cherish this project <small>(and, uh, have the litigation skills in spades for that role if it existed—and a proposed job description as an ongoing brain-doodling phone note)</small> but I’m going to stick to hyphenating compound modifiers and decapitalizing generic food names. I deeply appreciate the work of everyone who serves. I wish I felt comfortable being of more service. I’m just too scared of the trolls, and have too many IRL responsibilities to take on that enormous layer cake of anxiety with no expectation of support from the WMF. ''']''' '']'' 06:10, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *:ArbCom is covered by the ]. ] (]) 18:41, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *::To the extent of an unknown amount of “earmarked funds”, hence my budget transparency concerns. These cases get ''really'' expensive, really fast, because the obvious initial line of defense in many U.S. states (including California) is an ] motion, which requires accelerated briefing and discovery—and even though most such laws provide for the prevailing party (hopefully the WMF and volunteer(s)) to recoup attorney fees and costs of suit from the non-prevailing party, there is virtually never any ability or willingness for the loser to pay that award. Or they appeal. Either way, even the winner has to keep paying lawyers either to pursue the appeal or file motions as part of collection efforts. I would need to know the extent of those “earmarked funds” and the policies regarding their distribution before I’d be okay taking on that risk. I can’t trust the WMF not to quit paying my legal bills because <strike>they purportedly ran out of money</strike> their “earmarked funds” got exhausted mid-case. ''']''' '']'' 10:01, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *:Candidates still need >50% for a one year term, and >60% for a full two years, so an election would still be necessary. ] (]) 11:27, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *::Thanks for that {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}. You've put my mind partially at rest by showing that there is some quality control. It would still be better to have more candidates. ] (]) 12:27, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *:::Here's hoping for the rush during the final 48. ] (]) 12:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}} | |||
| *::::] is pretty good for those who may be on the fence. Clearly we need a few more good candidates. ] ] 19:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}} | |||
| *:::::For more descriptions of what it's like to be an arbitrator, see ]. ] (]) 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| *Glad to hear {{u|RoySmith}} and {{u|Liz}} are planning to add their names! :) How about some <s>straight-up peer pressure</s> other humble suggestions? Here are some folks I'd support (omitting a couple that I know I've nudged in the past and got a hard pass): {{ping|Red-tailed hawk|Firefangledfeathers|Novem Linguae|ScottishFinnishRadish|Rosguill|EvergreenFir|Girth Summit|Valereee|Joe Roe|Muboshgu}} (btw not expecting a response here -- just pinging in case you haven't thought about it) — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:23, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *:. ] (]) 21:33, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *::Well, there you go. I can pick 'em. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:41, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *:As a sitting member of the Ombuds Commission, I am ineligible. ] ] 21:37, 10 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *:{{ping|Rhododendrites}} I'm flattered, and rather chuffed, that you would suggest I put my hat in the ring. Susceptible as I am to suggestion, I'm going through some IRL stuff at the moment which has taken me away from the project for much of the last few months, and which might do so again in the year ahead. I wouldn't want to make promises about my available time which I'm unable to keep. That said, if you put your name forward, as a very experienced and level-headed editor, I think you might get a lot of support... Best wishes, ]] 00:48, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *::Understandable. Maybe next time. {{tq|if you put your name forward}} - oh heavens no. I'm just here to pester other people who would be good for it. :) — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:15, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *:Rhodo, I appreciate your confidence in me. But I'm not a spot in my life where I have the time to do the job of an arbitrator well, so I won't be running. — ] <sub>]</sub> 00:50, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| *ArbCom work seems it's even worse than closing long, difficult discussions. I can't imagine wanting to sign up for it, but those of you who do: thank you for your sacrifice, and I'll be praying for your wellbeing. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 02:48, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :What has kept me from throwing my hat in the ring, year after year, is that a) I enjoy the editing work I do now and that is pretty time-intensive and b) I don't want a repeat of my experience from my RFA which was grueling. But maybe arbitration candidates are treated more kindly than admin candidates. I do have a draft of a statement written up but I'm still undecided based on the two points I mentioned. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:22, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::Obviously I can't speak for ACE or EFA personally, but if you read the debriefs from the folks who just tried the admin elections, the general impression is that secret ballot made the whole thing pretty painless. Actually, one of the common complaints from the candidates who got more opposition is that they don't know what turned people off of them! The opposite of a gruelling RfA, really. -- ] (]) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::<big>'''Note to anyone waiting until the last minute:'''</big> That would be right now. There are nine seats open and only ten applicants. You have two hours. ] ] 22:08, 12 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::::I don't know whether or not it was your message, ], but we got two more candidates in the final two hours. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:18, 13 November 2024 (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) | |||
| == Is there a way to get an ENWP account blocked for multiple account abuse without filing an RFCU? == | |||
| :Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there. I am editing on the Simple English Misplaced Pages, as well as this one, and this afternoon I've discovered an account on the Simple Misplaced Pages, belonging to someone who also has an account here. ] has been blocked indefinitely (on Simple) for abusing multiple accounts. | |||
| *'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material == | |||
| The block was enacted by the administrator / checkuser ] on Friday November 1st 2024. Without carrying out a CU here, is there any way of getting the user blocked on here too, since they have been active with similar articles to those written on the Simple site, or do you have to conduct a local CU for the English Misplaced Pages, too? | |||
| {{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{la|Naomi Seibt}} | |||
| After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The notice to the user is linked here: ]. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Topic ban appeal == | |||
| Thank you. ]|] 17:03, 8 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :We'd need evidence that they have been abusing multiple accounts on this project. Do you know the name of the other accounts they used over there? ]] 17:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't. I can check for an SPI over there, and see if their other accounts are listed. I'll have to wait for a few moments, because I'm in the process of putting out the notices to the involved editors I've mentioned. I'll get on it in a moment. ]|] 17:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Girth_Summit}} - I can only see one on the SPI for Times Daily there, and that's ], who has not edited this site. They are however, connected. Involved parties (Vermont and Times Daily) have now been notified of this thread. ]|] 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This has been an issue for over a decade, in that one CU block doesn't carry over to other projects and CUs rarely notify other affected projects in which the accounts have activity on. There is an additional process by filing the report on ] to get a sockpuppet account global locked by stewards when this step should have been automatic. ]] 06:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ping to {{ping|JBW}}, who issued them a final warning; there are several issues with {{user|Times Daily}} that were flagged by multiple editors, including copyvios, trying to push a certain autobio with title evasion, and CIR concerns (calling readers 'viewers' in edit summaries for instance). <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I noticed only one, ], and they have not made any edits to en.wiki.--] (]) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Based on the socking elsewhere and the disruptive editing here, I ran a check. They're a sock of {{noping|Top Gun X 4}}. Blocking, along with The Unknown Explorer (both {{confirmed}}). Blocking etc. ]] 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 84Swagahh unban request == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Appeal accepted. ] (]) 03:49, 13 November 2024 (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) | |||
| '''Request reason''': | |||
| ::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored. | |||
| *:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects. | |||
| *:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did: | |||
| *:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart == | |||
| :Hello members of the Misplaced Pages administration reviewing my request for unblock, It has been six months since my last request for unblock and editing activity on the English Misplaced Pages. Per the standard offer and other rules on Misplaced Pages, I have not used any other account or IP address to edit on any Wikimedia project during this block. In addition, I promise that I will not repeat the behavior that led to my blocks. This behavior including creating and abusing sock-puppet accounts, vandalism, harassment, disruption, and username policy violations. Lastly, I do not believe that given reasons for people to object my return. I have avoided bad behavior and contributed to other projects during my block. During this block, ]. I have made over 1400 contributions and have not received any warning during my time. I reverted bad-faith edits using twinkle, gave those users warnings, nominated articles for deletion, performed copy-editing, welcomed new users, and expanded articles. I have applied for the roll backer permission and successfully earned it, meaning I am in good standing with the project's administration. However, I have not been as active with editing on the Simple English Misplaced Pages recently than I was the last 6-11 months. I still spent time reading articles on Misplaced Pages, but I just wasn't as active. I believe that this shows my efforts towards returning to the community and my ability to make positive contributions. Please note that this request was shorter than my last request in order to make it easier for administrators to review. If there are any questions for me, please ask me and I will respond to them. Thank you, 😂🤣]🤣😂 ] | |||
| {{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. — ] ] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Because he is banned via ], I'm bringing the request here. There is no evidence of recent block evasion (see brief discussion at ]). What he says about his activity on simple-wiki is true; there is some additional relevant discussion . -- ] (]) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Sure, I don't object. Editor seems to have matured some. ] (]) 00:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' – positive contributions at a sister project, meeting the ]. Welcome back. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we get some additional context on the initial block? Was it just blatant vandalism with multiple accounts? <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 12:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As far as I can tell, yeah. Examples (note datestamps): https://simple.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/BulgariaWarrior -- ] (]) 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::In that case, '''support'''. Seems more mature, and there will be basically no cost if it turns out otherwise. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as the editor is a good-faith editor and has been productive on another project, but with the condition that they not edit from temporarily assigned devices from their school. ] (]) 15:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' unbanning - I see no reason to not take this request in good faith and a spot-check of their contributions at Simple did not turn up any issues. <span style="color:green">](he/him)<sup>]</sup></span> 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Andra Febrian report == | |||
| == Closure request for ] == | |||
| "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">— 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 === | |||
| Would an admin please close ]? The consensus is obvious, but only an admin can implement it. Posted here because no admins watch ]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | ||
| User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/> | |||
| :{{done}}. I know plenty of admin who watch ], and I personally used to keep an eye on ], but I took a break recently. Will try to help with backlog there when possible. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/> | |||
| '''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/> | |||
| '''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/> | |||
| '''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12) | |||
| :Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan == | |||
| == Can someone delete my Userpage User:Blidfried == | |||
| {{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Cannot draftify page == | |||
| thanks--] (]) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (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 == | |||
| :I've done this. If you have a request like this again please use <nowiki>{{U1}}</nowiki>. ] (]) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (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">]:<]></span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == |
== "The Testifier" report == | ||
| {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Problem with creating user talk page == | |||
| I was trying to create ] as a redirect for ], as the lead of that article notes: "The film's title was taken from the name of a ] ] – three dots corresponding to the film's three different personalities from completely different strata of society." But was hit with a blacklist warning. | |||
| Can this be created as a redirect? | |||
| PS: Not sure why this is in the blacklist in the first place, would be great to know the reason. Thanks. ] (]) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Gotitbro}}, is the film actually ''called'' that anywhere, or is it just where the name comes from? {{ppor|no}} ] (]) 19:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed it is, the title is a direct transliteration of the letter after all, and from what I can tell the reason the letter isn't broadly used is due merely to technical reasons (in print and otherwise). See for example and . ] (]) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Done}}. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 20:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As for the reason, the comment in the blacklist entry is "potentially confusing mixed-script titles." I can't tell you any more than that. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 20:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Revdel == | |||
| Hi, Could you please revdel ? And blocked the talk page as well? ] (]) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like ] removed TPA back in October and ] revision deleted that edit. So, all done here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The username alone is powerful evidence that this person came to Misplaced Pages only to troll. ] (]) 03:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Guidance to participants at a ], please == | |||
| {{atop | {{atop | ||
| | result = |
| 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. ] (]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] has descended into a somewhat arcane discussion about a religious concept rather than being confined to whether the biography being discussed should stay or go. I can't find an obvious place to ask for whatever guidance is available to participants to be given, so I'm hoping this is the right board. | |||
| :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 realise that the eventual closer is well able to disregard any off topic material, but their job will be easier if it is handled at this stage. What I perceive as clutter is becoming rather large and imposing. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 08:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps not needed. {{U|David Eppstein}} has engaged in selective hatting of off topic material. Thank you, David. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 08:43, 10 November 2024 (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}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 == | |||
| == User:94.64.80.27 == | |||
| ] from the past month (December 2024). | |||
| the IP 94.64.80.27 keeps adding unicode swastikas to the ] article. Please block immediately. <span style="color:#D33C3C"><span style="vertical-align:sub;"><span style="vertical-align:sub;line-height:180%"><span style="font-size:180%; vertical-align:sub;">⛿</span></span></span></span> ] | ] 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Done, blocked for one week. --] (]) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I feel like this is the sort of thing that an edit filter should be able to catch... — ] <sub>]</sub> 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> | |||
| == Permission gaming after warnings == | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Uncle Ramon has been blocked (and globally locked) as an LTA. ] (]) 09:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| ] seems to be making a ton of useless edits to user talk page to get to Extended Confirmed. They have been made aware that this is prohibited, but they have deleted that notice and continued, so here we are. ] <small> (]) </small> 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| :I'm doing it because I can't post on someone's talk page because I need to talk to them about something and their talk page is extended confirmed protected ] (]) 06:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| :(I'm so dumb, I posted this in AN thinking this was AN/I...) There is always an option to request a decrease in protection level or reach the editor in a different way. ] <small> (]) </small> 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::What other way to reach them is there? ] (]) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You can just ping them. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">] (] | ])</span> 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't want to cast aspersions, but with recent LTA's always being here, I am led to believe they want to edit Qcne's talk page. The user could just tell us who's talk page they want to edit, but doesn't want to tell. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">] (] | ])</span> 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Huh? Who's Qcne? | |||
| ::<br /> | |||
| ::I'm not looking to contact that user, and their talk page isn't even ECP'd | |||
| ::<br /> | |||
| ::I just looked upon going to that person's talk page ] (]) 06:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, who are you trying to contact? We can contact them for you. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">] (] | ])</span> 06:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But I don't want anybody to contact them tho | |||
| ::::<br /> | |||
| ::::That's what I'm trying to get at | |||
| ::::<br /> | |||
| ::::I want to be the one to contact them ] (]) 06:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, this user came outta nowhere just today and they already know jargons like "ECP". I'm probably bad at assuming good faith here. ] <small> (]) </small> 06:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well you create an account and you already need to contact someone. There aren’t tons of ECP user talk pages. I want to assume good faith though, but I wanted others who see this report to consider the possibility. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">] (] | ])</span> 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, because I just created an account 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure 2 months is enough to know what ECP is. ] (]) 06:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You started editing today. ] <small> (]) </small> 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::So just because I started editing today that means I didn't start READING Misplaced Pages until today...? | |||
| :::::::: | |||
| ::::::::And I'm somehow supposed to magically assume that I don't know anything about the user permission rights because I just started editing today? ] (]) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Extended confirmed revoked. You can make a request to regain that permission after making 500 real edits. — ] ] 06:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Then how am I supposed to contact the person I want to contact if their talk page is extended confirmed protected? ] (]) 06:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You’ve had plenty of offers to help. See above. — ] ] 06:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::And I already said I don't need their help. So I'm not sure why you… felt the need to take my extended confirmed privileges away. ] (]) 06:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Gaming the system. You were warned multiple times. — ] ] 06:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Over a talk page?????? ] (]) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}{{u|Uncle Ramon}}, yes, this is over a talk page. The intent of the 500 edit requirement to achieve ] is to show convincingly that the editor is learning about Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. An editor who repeatedly adds just another period to a long list of periods that does not improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way is learning nothing of value and is "gaming the system". That is what you have been doing, and if you want to have a conversation with another editor whose talk page is protected due to harassment, then there legitimate ways to do so, such as pinging that editor to this conversation. Your refusal to do so and reluctance to explain yourself indicates that your intentions are not productive. ] (]) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
| :I'm not pinging them here because I dont want to ping them, I want to post on THEIR talk page. I already explained myself several times so I'm not being reluctant AT ALL to explain myself, y'all just dont want to listen. I said I wanted to post on another editor's talk page and I wanted to start the conversation from there, on THEIR talk page. Not anywhere else. I'm not understanding why the fuck y'all take a privilege away from somebody that already EXPLAINED their intentions and then refuse to give it back to them, when there shouldnt fucking be a restriction on the other page in the first place. ] (]) 07:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| Following their permissions being revoked, they have left ]. Given the wording used, I don't think they understand the situation to put it mildly. --] (]) 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ] ] (]) 07:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| == Forum-y discussion == | |||
| * Following ], ] was adopted as a ]. | |||
| * A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space. | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| * The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. | |||
| ] '''Arbitration''' | |||
| Hi, there's a very ]y discussion at ] which has been dragging on for months but is going absolutely nowhere. I'm involved so can't close it myself per ], but if anyone fancies chucking some {{t1|atop}} and {{t1|abot}} templates around it so we can all get on with our lives, that would be appreciated. ]] 15:42, 11 November 2024 (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}}. | |||
| :Yeah, that seems to be going nowhere fast. I can't find any sort of actual suggestion from the IP as to what ought to be done and nobody agrees with them; I've collapsed the whole thread and suggested that if anyone has concrete suggestions and policy-based reasoning they should open a move request. ] (]) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Miscellaneous''' | |||
| == Unban request for Kansascitt1225 == | |||
| * A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{np|Kansascitt1225}} is considered ] due to extensive sockpuppetry, see ]. They are requesting the ban be lifted and I am posting their request below. As a ], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Their request from August 16 indicates they haven't evaded in eight months, so that would make it about 11 months now. I lost track of this unban request due to ] and ], my apologies to Kansascitt1225 for making them wait so freaking long to start this discussion. I have ''very slightly'' altered the request to nowiki the references, to make them more obvious on this discussion page. --] (]) 20:58, 11 November 2024 (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 == | |||
| :Hi admins, I have not edited Misplaced Pages since December of 2023. I was unable to continue responding to my last request due to personal circumstances and going out of town. I have demonstrated that I can follow simple, clear instructions which shows I am able to abide by community rules and not bypass my block. I would appreciate being given wikipedias standard offer. I promise to not use multiple accounts which is the behavior that got me blocked to begin with. Most of these accounts were improperly used for persistent block evasion. I don’t want to give anyone anymore reasons to object. I know now that if I have a disagreement with someone I can talk on the talk page or on their user talk page instead of edit warring or creating an account. I have learned that civility is important on Misplaced Pages too and have become easier to get along with as I am older now also. I want to make constructive edits to Misplaced Pages and am interested in demographics and geography along with world and cities populations. I am trying to keep this short and I promise that I don’t intend to be disruptive to the project at all. I know it was a problem on my investigations case page me objecting to “largely suburban” on the Johnson county pages. I truly believed I was doing the right thing as I was always taught where I was growing up that a suburb was a more car centric place that is less dense within commuting distance of a city which is currently what the ] page says now. I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located. In the case of Kansas City this suburban area and the municipalities within it have lower single family housing rates, more jobs, more population and higher density than the city with some suburbs walking to work more than the city. I wanted to make this clear. I do have good references for this including from the us census bureau. I think the main issue I had with the content is that calling the communities like Overland Park and Johnson county “suburban” makes people think that more people commute out than into these places and that these places are less dense and have more single family housing, which is the complete opposite of reality. I won’t remove anything about these communities as being suburban but want to include that they have more density, more jobs and lower single family housing rates so people don’t get confused. I also edited a while ago (more than 6 months) the ] page and showed how white flight influenced the city’s economy as it was the same for ] and wanted to edit the page to make it more accurate instead of saying the economy is anchored by Kansas City Missouri even though there’s more jobs outside the city than within it. I have edited these before while blocked but not within the last 8 months. I want to make constructive edits to improve the encyclopedia and working cooperatively with others is what I intend on doing. I was also upset that was removed as biased, misleading and false to the point the page was protected and from my point of view I felt as though I was being blatantly lied too. It’s a well known fact that Kansas City has experienced decades of white flight and urban decay and I think I was also caught off guard by people in Kansas City calling these places suburbs meanwhile them having these characteristics. | |||
| {{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. | |||
| :- Here are some references | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| :• States that Most United States jobs are in the suburbs <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref></nowiki> | |||
| '''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
| :• States that Single family detached homes are less common in some of the suburbs compared to city in the Kansas City area. <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP04&g=160XX00US2053775,2938000}}</ref></nowiki> | |||
| * : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version | |||
| * : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page." | |||
| * : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template). | |||
| * : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}} | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary. | |||
| * JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached" | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary. | |||
| * : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention. | |||
| * : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate. | |||
| * : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate." | |||
| * At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page." | |||
| ** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.) | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it". | |||
| * ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa'' | |||
| :• Shows that there is a Higher population density in some of the suburbs of Kansas City <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/Missouri/Kansas-City/Population#figure/place/population-density}}</ref></nowiki> | |||
| * Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
| :• comparison that shows people walk to work more in some of the suburbs than the city <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2938000}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2039350}}}</ref></nowiki> | |||
| * 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. | |||
| --- | |||
| :] (]) 09:59, 16 August 2024 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Frankly, this unblock request reads as a promise to continue to ] on a specific topic ({{tq|I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located.}}), rather the opposite of what we want from editors. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The following comment copied over from User talk:Kansascitt1225. Minor formatting changes from me, around references. --] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi {{ping|HandThatFeeds}} thank you for reading my unblock request. I’m not sure if you read these references or not, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are in the suburbs in the United States. In Kansas City for example only around 4% of jobs are in the central business district and only 30% of the Kansas City areas jobs are in the city of Kansas City, Missouri. Could you please explain how this would be tendentious editing so I can avoid it the future ? I can’t find any evidence for the contrary and genuinely do want to work cooperatively with others and I honestly don’t see how this is breaching Neutral point of view. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::*Census publication <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref></nowiki> | |||
| ::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Reposted above from archive, see ] | |||
| ::*Website article <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref></nowiki> | |||
| JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
| ::*Sample of jobs in central business districts. <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf}}</ref></nowiki> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| :::Honestly, this just proves my point: rather than building up trust in the community by doing ''literally anything else'', the user wants to go back to an area to {{tq|educate people}} that they are right, and is arguing over sourcing rather than ]. Kansascitt1225, if you want any hope of ever being unblocked, you should step away from this topic entirely and work on something else. If this is the ''only'' thing you're interested in working on for Misplaced Pages, I'd suggest just moving on to some other site. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Kansascitt should move on to different projects. I'd suggest taking pictures of subjects that are highly needed in articles, Commons is all about contributing with highly educational value images. ] (]) 00:04, 15 November 2024 (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) | |||
| == Red link example user == | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ] is permanently protected as a link that can be used in documentation and testing (note the page protection summary). | |||
| :It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law. | |||
| ::::* To who would this be a threat? | |||
| ::::* Which law? | |||
| ::::* In which country? | |||
| ::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wow, I am glad you asked. | |||
| ::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store. | |||
| ::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down. | |||
| ::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong. | |||
| ::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have created ] for the same purpose. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Can someone kindly permanently protect the user, talk and sandbox pages, with an edit summary similar to the above? | |||
| * 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) | |||
| Once done, I will also request that the account be globally locked. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:00, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :{{Done}} ] (]/]) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| {{Section resolved|1=Thank you. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:38, 11 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :* 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=]}}. | |||
| == Unban request for Wikiuser1314 == | |||
| :* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
| {{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
| {{np|Wikiuser1314}} is ] under ]. They were initially blocked as a sock of {{np|WorldCreaterFighter}} who has a long-term abuse page, see ]. They claim to be unrelated, but admit a long string of sockpuppets. As a ], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. I solicited feedback from other checkusers on the cu mailing list but did not get a response. --] (]) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}} | |||
| :* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Hello Misplaced Pages community! At first I want to apologize for my past mistakes. I want to face my past and work to regain the trust of the community. Quite some time has passed, and I fully understand my wrongdoings now. After waiting the mandatory six months since the block of this account, I sincerely ask for a ] process. – To better understand and summarize my past mistakes, I will try to exlpain how it started: my first account ] (no access anymore), which initially got blocked because I stupidly created two other accounts at that time ] and ] simultaneously. I attribute these quite stupid actions to my then quite young age of 15 years old in 2016. After some time, those three accounts got correctly blocked as confirmed to each other, but later got merged into the "WorldCreatorFighter" sock-zoo, which now is confirmed to represent (at least) two distinct users (the other being ]). I was however to dump and too impatient at that time to explain or wait and apply for a standard offer. As such, the misery started, paired with other rule violations and childish behavior on my side, such as being too impatient and too fixated on my personal views (regardless of if they were correct/sourced or not) and did aggressively try to implement them here. – My blockes were justified and I am ashamed of my past mistakes. Since late 2022, and with this account (Wikiuser1314), I learned a lot, not only here on Misplaced Pages, but also in real life. I improved myself, became more patient, more cooperative and appreciated to work together with other users. In short, I got older and learned from my past. For that, please also take a look at my talk page and edits of this account (Wikiuser1314). – I really want to constructively and positively edit and contribute to the Misplaced Pages project, together with fellow Wikipedians, and according to the rules. I do not want to run away anymore and hope to get a chance to prove myself. I am ready to fully cooperate with the Misplaced Pages community to regain trust. I am also ready to reveal my real identity to administrators and get in contact with them, to explain myself and for further details if it is necessary. Thanks. Sincerely – ] (]) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (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. | |||
| I then asked, Please list '''all''' of the accounts you've used. A good place to start is ] and ]. I'm primarily interested in accounts you've used in the past year that we haven't listed there and primarily interested in accounts you claim do not belong to you. --] (]) 12:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|user:Yamla}} Embarrassing for me, but here are the accounts I once used: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]?, ], ], ]?, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]?, ], ], ], ], ], ]?, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
| :— | |||
| *This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The others in both lists are unrelated to me. '''(Not me''':], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ''')''' | |||
| :— | |||
| :Accounts once associated with me, but not blocked/listed here should be these: ], ], and ]. – ] (]) 16:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == An inappropriate template being added to many pages == | |||
| *If this user is really distinct from the master of the WorldCreaterFighter sockfarm, we couldn't distinguish them by behaviour nor by technical data, and we have a ''lot'' of those data points. At some point when we get into the ''hundreds'' of accounts that both look and act the same, we stop bothering to carefully distinguish one account from another, because they've collectively been so disruptive over such a long period of time that there's practically zero chance of them ever being unblocked, and each new one is just adding to the garbage heap. So maybe Wikiuser1234 is a different person, maybe they're not; to me it's irrelevant, and ]. This case goes back over a decade, has been persistent throughout that time, and involves pushing fringe theories in a sensitive subject. I'm inclined to say ''never'' here, but I'd like to hear from people who edit that topic and have had to put up with this for a decade. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Oct13}} | |||
| *:Do we know when the most recent sock was? There's too many here for me to hunt-and-peck looking for it. ] ] 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Based on manual investigation (!!!) of the self-declared socks, {{np|Wikiuser1314}} last edited articles on 2024-04-22. Prior to that account, {{np|Krause96}} on 2023-08-02. --] (]) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Wikiuser1314: what do you plan to edit if unblocked? Articles, topic areas, etc... what are your interests? ] (]) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' There's every indication that the user is ready to be reintegrated into the Misplaced Pages community. They waited out the required six months patiently, made a perfectly reasonable unban request, and came clean about their past accounts. Their most recent account, ], made over 1500 edits over a period of 1.5 years without causing any disruption. I don't see any value in preventing them from ''continuing'' to positively contribute to the project. ] (]) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. A solid six-month wait and a strong value to future constructive contributions seem that the user will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Welcome back. The community might trust you again. ] (]) 05:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP hopper back at the Help Desk == | |||
| :I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There's an IP hopper back at the ] posting stuff like ]. This kind of thing has been happening on and off at various pages (e.g. ]) for awhile now and seems to resume eventually . There seem to be ] of essentially the same post being added, but they're all in non-standard fonts. I think some of the accounts have been blocked, but that hasn't slowed this person down. Is there any thing that can be done outside of page protection? I don't have much experience with ], but it appears this might be one of those cases. -- ] (]) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The disruption seems to have stopped for now; so, perhaps nothing needs to be done at the moment. -- ] (]) 07:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am sorry but probably nothing can be done. May be some ranges can be blocked but they seem to use multiple ranges. ] (]) 07:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This now seems to be being discussed in more detail below at ]; so, perhaps this thread can be closed. -- ] (]) 21:33, 14 November 2024 (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. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Flamewar at ] over BilledMammal == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| 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) | |||
| | result = Issues resolved, editors aware of the proper location(s) to raise concerns should they arise again. ] ] 03:15, 14 November 2024 (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?— ] ] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|BilledMammal}} was recently granted rollback permissions by {{u|Just Step Sideways}} and used those permissions to mass-revert {{u|CarmenEsparzaAmoux}}, a blocked sockpuppet. {{u|Makeandtoss}} and {{u|Zero0000}} (an admin) are now arguing at that thread the permissions were wrongly granted. Both of them should be told to knock it off. | |||
| ::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.— ] ] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction == | |||
| First of all, RFP is not the right place for that discussion as both editors were warned by {{u|Extraordinary Writ}}, an uninvolved administrator, though they have continued arguing. Second of all, Extraordinary Writ and other admins have explained that to {{tq|revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)}} is an acceptable ]. | |||
| {{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. | |||
| I would appreciate it if uninvolved administrators can step in and close that thread since RFP isn't the appropriate forum for lengthy discussions of tool use. I'd also like a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here. | |||
| 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> | |||
| For full context, Makeandtoss and BilledMammal were involved in a dispute over the Palestine-Israel topic area that made it to ] in June, and the use of rollback occurred within that area. Makeandtoss was given a final warning by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} {{tq|for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics}} and previous battlegroundy behaviour in the area. There is probably a further conduct issue that can be dealt with here or at AE, but '''the immediate action should be to close the RFP thread.''' <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:00, 12 November 2024 (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 agree that PERM is not a place for debates. I've shut it down. I don't think that was an INVOLVED action as all I did was respond to the intial request, not the ensuing argument. ] ] 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You conflicted my edit! ] (]) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And you thanked me for it. Go team. ] ] 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| No idea what the justification is of this use of rollback, not reverting a blocked editor in any case. ] (]) 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : ] (]) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::For the lazy: it was an accident. I definitely misclicked rollback within a day of getting the permission, and I bet at least half of our rollbackers/admins have done the same. ] (] / ]) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :::Fun fact: although I work permission requests semi-regularly, I hate the rollback function, I use a script that blocks it (if you didn't know, admins have no choice whether they have it or not), and I use Twinkle instead. It's too easy to make mistakes with normal rollback. ] ] 19:17, 12 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::::I hit a rollback button accidentally several times a week (much more often than I rollback anything), so I also use that blocking script, and rely on Twinkle for rollback. ] 19:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on. | |||
| :::::When I got my admin tools rollback showed up on my watchlist. As I edit from my phone pretty often and mistaps are common, I immediately sought out help and installed a script to hide it before I got desysop'd for cause. ] (]) 19:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| ::::::This has happened to me before when I try to edit on my phone. Looking at a page history, the link to look at an edit/diff is right next to the link to rollback and I've misclicked. Luckily, you can rollback a mistaken rollback. I've stopped doing much work on my phone if it involves looking at individual edits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| :::::::I am actually using a script which blocks rollback on my watchlist (the highest chance to misclick due to banners on top loading slowly) but not on page histories or user contributions. I have a global rollback, but I do not think this matters. ] (]) 22:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| ::::::::I use one to shrink the rollback button so that I am far less likely to accidentally click it. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 03:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::::The remove rollback script is at ]. — ] ] 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is a gadget that will require a confirmation before clicking. <span class ="nowrap vcard"><b><span class="fn">]</span> <]•]></b></span> 20:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The best mobile environment on offer for Misplaced Pages editing (Monobook with the "responsive mode" option enabled) automatically turns on this confirmation in small screen mode. In practice, that means I get a confirmation dialog on my phone but not on my laptop. No idea whether similar features exist in other skins. —] (]) 21:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I still believe there's an issue here. Makeandtoss appears to have a grudge against BilledMammal and ignored repeated attempts to de-escalate at ]. Would ] be a better location for that thread? I'm asking for permission as ] precludes me from bringing up the same topic at two noticeboards. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::]:You got it the wrong way around: BilledMammal seem to have a grudge against Makeandtoss (and Nableezy, and me, and anyone else who isn't pro-Israeli enough). I haven't seen Makeandtoss filling ], ], or ] with reports about BilledMammal, but I have literally lost count over how many times BilledMammal has reported his "adversaries" these last couple of weeks, ] (]) 21:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would concur that BilledMammal has been demonstrating a bit of a ] attitude of late that is somewhat alarming. Granting them extra tools at this time and seeing them possibly mis-used is alarming. ] (]) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, that would be the third noticeboard you bring me into today. The claim that the respectful discussion at RFP/R was a "flamewar" is misleading. As for the other claim, are you really arguing that if someone filed a report against me in the past I am not allowed to dispute any of their editing behavior in the future? ] (]) 20:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Flamewar" may be a slight overstatement, but ] is not a noticeboard, and not the right place to bring up such concerns, valid or not. ] ] 21:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay sure, if I have new relevant concerns I will open a discussion elsewhere; though I will note that PERM is listed as a ]. ] (]) 21:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Makeandtoss}} I want you to recognize that following BilledMammal to ] and opposing user rights grants is not appropriate in any situation. It wasn't a respectful discussion, you were told by an administrator to knock it off twice and kept going for days. | |||
| ::The correct place to bring up improper usage of permissions is at this very board. That's why I asked for {{tq|a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here}} and why I redirected the discussion to this thread. | |||
| ::Right now, you've made a non-apology and are insisting that because PERM is technically a noticeboard, it was appropriate to post there. That's not the right attitude. I would rather you acknowledge you were mistaken, and when you receive a warning from an admin in the future, to look at your own actions and correct course ''before'' a thread like this. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I’m not going to get too involved in this discussion as doing so would probably increase tensions, but ], regarding objections to my signing of an RFC with a timestamp, was opened by Makeandtoss a day before the objections at RfPP, with the same editors participating. Personally, I’ve considered them related. ] (]) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The permission was granted by Just Step Sideways without commenting on the doubt that {{ping|Fastily}} had just expressed. I stated my opinion there, gave examples of what I believe is misuse of the tool, and noted that I am involved in the area. (Despite what Chess claims in this make-trouble posting, Extraordinary Writ said nothing to me.) Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal. My comment was to Just Step Sideways, who in my opinion should have looked at BilledMammal closer before granting this unusual power and should have undone the mistake when informed of how it was used. And ] when their administrative actions are questioned (disagreement is fine). The issue isn't whether sock edits can be reversed—everyone knows it is allowed—but whether a protagonist in a contentious area should be given the ability to make mass reverts '''without looking at them''' in that area at all. In my opinion it shouldn't happen and I would never consider using my administrator access to the tools to do mass reverts like that (vandals excepted). I would look at the edits and keep what is good for each article, which was quite a lot in this case. By the way, calling that discussion a "flame war" is absurd. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Zero0000}} {{tq|Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal.}} What does this mean? You never left a comment at BilledMammal's talk page, could you elaborate why not? The only comment is about the accidental rollback. | |||
| :I also don't understand how this is a make-trouble posting. You and Makeandtoss clearly believe BilledMammal acted in error. We are now at the venue where that error can be corrected. Why am I, a non-admin, being forced to create a thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard to get you to properly discuss your concerns with other admins? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Gimme a break. "Both of them should be told to knock it off." is not a request for discussion. Nor are your subsequent comments. They are an accusation and request for action, neither of which have the least justification. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Zero0000}} My point is that wasn't the best idea. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I’ve always treated blocked socks edits as something that could be reverted basically without looking at them. Other people can look at them and restore the ones they want, which is what happened here, but the removals themselves are a non-issue imo. What I wish actually existed was a way to auto strike a sock of a banned editors comments on talk pages. The whole point of BMB is that, regardless of if they are good or bad, edits by a banned editors are by definition disruptive and can be removed. Somebody used a more efficient way to remove them, good for them I guess. ''']''' - 05:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It would actually be very easy to create a bot or user script like that - I no longer have the time, but you could ask at ]. ] (]) 14:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Incidentally, WP:PERM is by design a place where decisions are made over whether someone should be given an elevated permission. I don't see why that should exclude objections to the result when the case file is still there. The record is better served by keeping it together than by moving it somewhere unrelated. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The perm was granted already, there's not really a need to argue or continue the discussion there as opposed to a talk page or noticeboard. At this point, from my point of view, the only thing to consider is whether they have violated ], which it does not seem like they have (minus a misclick, which happens). So, until they do, it's best to just let it be with your original objections having been noted at the request. ] (]) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree, and I never had any intention of commenting on it further until Chess decided to make an AN case out of it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == ] backlog doin' great == | |||
| == Please stop merging ] into ] == | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] article is going wrongly to merge into ]. Merging these articles is wrong because both article are notable and specially where Mahsa Amini has received ]. I think a person who receive this important prize must have an article independently. Please stop merging these articles. ] (]) 19:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The merge is occurring due to the closure decision at ]. Admins don't overrule consensus decisions on content. If they did, they'd likely be facing a recall discussion. You can try talking to the editor who closed the Merge discussion but it's unlikely to change the outcome of the discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That would be me, and they did, but I guess they were impatient, because they came here about half an hour later. I'm continuing the conversation at ]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 23:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following user to the ] following private and ]: | |||
| == Call for mentors == | |||
| *{{userlinks|TheresNoTime}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| In addition, the following administrators are appointed to the ] following private and ]: | |||
| :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.) ] ] 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 ]== | |||
| *{{admin|331dot}} | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| *{{admin|Robertsky}} | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| The Committee thanks everyone who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion. | |||
| I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]: | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024}}'''<!-- ] (]) 01:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| (keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Draft Creation: এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ == | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello administrators, | |||
| * '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation == | |||
| I am requesting assistance with creating a draft article titled "এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ". When I attempted to create it, I received a message indicating that the title is restricted due to blacklist criteria for Bengali language titles. This institution is a college in Ashuganj, Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh, and it aims to provide higher education to local students in a rural area with limited educational resources. Here is a brief overview of the college: | |||
| 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) | |||
| Establishment: February 2020 | |||
| Founder: এ.কে.এম দুলাল | |||
| Principal: আহম্মদ উল্লাহ খন্দকার | |||
| Location: শরিফপুর, আশুগঞ্জ, ব্রাহ্মণবাড়িয়া, Bangladesh | |||
| Affiliation: Cumilla Education Board | |||
| EIIN Number: ১৩৯৬৫১ | |||
| Facebook Page: akmdulaldegreecollege | |||
| Motto: "Education is Power" (শিক্ষাই শক্তি) | |||
| == Deleted contributions request == | |||
| The college was established to provide accessible higher education to students in nearby villages, where such opportunities were previously limited. The college’s mission is to promote modern and scientific education to create a knowledgeable and self-reliant society. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| Since I cannot create this page directly, I kindly request that an administrator help with creating the draft or advise me on how to proceed. Thank you very much for your assistance. ] (]) 04:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: 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? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] == | |||
| :@] One thing that is necessary is to translate the name of the college into English, since this is the English Misplaced Pages. You'll also need to provide citations from independent coverage of the college in ]. —''']''' (]) 04:42, 13 November 2024 (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)}} | |||
| ::There are similar educational institutions, like 'ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ,' which retain their Bengali names in English Misplaced Pages, indicating cultural significance. I believe 'এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ' also holds local importance, providing essential educational services to underserved rural areas. I am also happy to include an English translation if needed, for example, 'A.K.M. Dulal Degree College.' Besides, I will ensure reliable sources and references to meet Misplaced Pages’s standards. ] (]) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :Article titles ]. You should create a draft using the English name. ] (]/]) 04:43, 13 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::Thank you for the guidance. I understand that article titles need to be in English, so I will create the draft as "A.K.M. Dulal Degree College." I will also include the Bengali name in the article introduction to honor its cultural significance, similar to ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ, which retain their Bengali names within English Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 05:12, 13 November 2024 (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) | ||
| ::::But they do on Bengali Misplaced Pages. {{ping|A K M Dulal}}, if you want to write your article in Bengali please be aware that this page, and the instruction that article titles must be in English, only relate to the English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::While you’re at it, please read ]. ] (]) 11:41, 13 November 2024 (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) | |||
| == Samantha Crawford (soprano) page nofollow index help == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person == | |||
| I am hopeful someone can help me here. I have made significant improvements to the article "]", ensuring that it complies with Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines by adding reliable, third-party sources. These sources clearly establish that ] is a notable soprano, with significant international performances, verified recordings by verified music labels, and media coverage. I’ve carefully reviewed the criteria for biographies of living persons and have incorporated independent references that demonstrate her impact in the opera and concert world. Could an admin please advise on the next steps to have the "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">" tag removed? I would appreciate any guidance on addressing any remaining concerns about notability or sourcing. Thank you for your time and assistance. I have tried addressing this on my talk page but have received no answer, so hoping I'm in the right spot here. -EB Eshbowman ] (]) 14:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Hi. What's your connection to the subject? There's certainly some promotional language in there that needs removing. ] (]) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It will be no-indexed until it's marked reviewed by an editor with ]. Please see ]. As an aside, the article appears to be quite promotional. Do you have a financial or other relationship with Crawford? If so, you must declare a conflict of interest per our ]. ] (]/]) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the article should be moved to draft. I just took a quick spin and it's not ready for mainspace. A lot of references don't support the points being made, there were copyvios and too close paraphrasing. It reads still like a resume, not an encyclopaedia article. ] ] 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :And you '''must''' reply to the concerns raised on your userpage regarding undeclared paid editing before editing articles any further. I also note that concerns were raised 8 years ago (]) that you failed to address. These need to be directly addressed now. — ] ] 16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah. Wanting mostly to remove the noindex to allow search engines to find it means that they're more interested in the promotional purpose than encyclopaedic. ] ] 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which, as it happens, is ''precisely why'' we use ] to discourage linkspam. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :noindex will be removed when the page is reviewed. I could be wrong, but I believe nofollow is built into the site infrastructure. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 00:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s> | |||
| == Closure request for ] == | |||
| :That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – ] (]) (]) 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. – ] (]) (]) 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. == | |||
| Would an administrator please close ]? I am not brave enough to test whether it is socially acceptable yet for non-admins to close discussions involving bans. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :<small>There is a ], if you are feeling brave.— ] <sub>]</sub> 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::], complaints that have been archived are not edited so closing an archived discussion would not be appropriate because, basically, it would be hidden from view and, as I said, archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them. | |||
| :::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 "unarchiving" this discussion and reposting the case here. But, regarding your main question, I don't think it's appropriate for a non-admin to close a discussion about imposing or lifting a ban or block although I'd like to hear from other admins here about this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::At one point it was unarchived, but then someone commented at CR that this was unnecessary, so nothing was done when it was automatically archived again. In my observation, editors split about 50-50 on whether it is okay to close an archived discussion without first unarchiving it (usually, a courtesy note is left on the active page when leaving it archived). At any rate, I don't care about the implementation details, as long as someone closes it. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 00:57, 14 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::::Well, if this query is not about a desired discussion outcome and more about your need for closure, then I think this request will not solicit any response from admins who review this noticeboard. Discussions on AN and ANI often get archived without any closure or action being taken. It's something you'll need to accept. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:24, 14 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :::::With five people supporting an unban vs. two opposing, one of two things should happen: the ban be lifted, or an explanation of why the opposing side's arguments were stronger be given. I don't think it's fair to the appellant that a consensus to unban seemingly have formed, yet the ban never formally be lifted because no admin could be bothered to take responsibility for it. ''That'' is why I posted here. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 17:03, 14 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :::{{tpq|archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them.}} Based on what happened at ], I would say that usually they are not edited unless it is for vandalism. Rare for discussions to be closed after being archived, but it happens. --] (]) 04:05, 14 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::::], I find this surprising. Do any examples come to mind right now? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:31, 14 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :::::Other examples, not immediately. But I should be able to get a list of some discussions <s>in the next 30-ish minutes</s>. (Going to go digging at ].) --] (]) 04:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::::Thanks. Consider this detective work, not homework. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Gotcha. Since this is would likely take half a day to type up, I will just list the results from Archive 1 and Archive 39 for Closure requests and some additional notes for the others typed up afterwards. (I was using the search results, hence the jump between multiple archives in the notes.) Collapsed for convenience. --] (]) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cot|title=Search results. --] (]) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| # ] (]) | |||
| # ]<sup></sup> (]) | |||
| # ] (]; ]) | |||
| # ] (]) | |||
| # ] (]) | |||
| # ]<sup></sup> (]) | |||
| # ](-1170?)<sup></sup> (]) | |||
| == Hide this racist edit. == | |||
| Other results: | |||
| {{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * ], but the closure ] | |||
| {{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * ], but the closure ] | |||
| Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. | |||
| * ], but it was declined. | |||
| * ], but it was declined. | |||
| * ], but it was not done. | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Notes: | |||
| * Taiwan/Archive 20 is abnormal. Between 45 and 50 edits were made in March 2012 with the majority involving closing discussion. | |||
| * Specifically un-archived when closed. | |||
| * Discussion is abnormal. ] has a version with the sub-topic closed and the original discussion still open when archived. ] has a version with the sub-topic never closed and the original discussion closed. Unusual duplicate. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Additional details: | |||
| :Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Archive 4: 8 requests with all being done. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * Archive 5: 6 requests with 5 done and 1 modified. | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| * Archive 14: 17 requests. | |||
| * Archive 19: 28 or so requests. Multiple done and a few not done. | |||
| * Archive 22: 58 or 59 requests. Multiple done, few already done, at least 1 not done. | |||
| * Archive 25: 20 requests. | |||
| * Archive 30: 30 requests. | |||
| * Total requests from Archives 1, 4, 5, 14, 19, 22, 25, and 30: 179 or 180. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| ::::::::I'm not sure of how exactly to interpret this information but I appreciate your efforts and I think some of our data-loving administrators will find it interesting, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Archive 444 was the first example mention, but that was a bit of an exception. RSN regularly grows to an unmanageable size, so restoring a near half megabytes discussion would have (and did) make the page semi-broken. It shouldn't be taken as any kind of precedent. Also notices where posted on RSN that the close(s) had taken place. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::But at the same time, there are closes that occur after a discussion has found itself archived for one reason or another. ] is the best example that I know of with over 50 requests. --] (]) 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{like}} ] ] 07:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *There's a consensus to vacate the sanction, but the other side of the IBAN opposes the idea. What's the play here other than to quietly allow status quo to remain undisturbed? I'd argue that it would be reckless to close that discussion. And as for closing archived threads, I've always felt that ''only'' archived threads should be closed since their archival indicates nobody had anything more to say meaning they're ''actually'' ready to be closed. ] (]) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin prohibits to delete copyright links == | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| {{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): | |||
| An arbitration case ] (formerly titled ]) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| * | |||
| * Yasuke is designated as a ]. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years. | |||
| * | |||
| * The article ] is subject to a ] restriction for a period of one year. | |||
| * ] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| * ] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| * ] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| * ] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| * ] is warned that disruptive behavior will lead to increasing sanctions if they continue. | |||
| * ] is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Gitz6666, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| 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) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 22:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed}}'''<!-- ] (]) 22:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == 96.230.143.43 == | |||
| == i want to create userpage about me == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| can you create userpage of Jean Ngatcha this is my name. ] (]) 08:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == StoneX Group Inc. == | |||
| :{{u|Jean Ngatcha}} You are free to edit ] to tell about yourself as a Misplaced Pages editor or user, not necessarily to tell anything and everything about yourself. Please see the ] as to what types of content are acceptable (and not acceptable) for user pages. Writing an '''article''' about yourself is entirely different, and highly discouraged, please see the ]. ] (]) 09:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I’m concerned about the page at ] | |||
| == Deleted article question == | |||
| 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) | |||
| The articles ] and ] were created by a new account yesterday, but I'm almost certain that ] and ended up deleted for some reason. Is there any way to get a look at the page history of a deleted article that ends up being recreated under the same name? I'm also pretty sure the files used in the articles were previously uploaded and deleted too. I think the articles and files were created by ] but don't have the required permission to access the page. -- ] (]) 12:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I have deleted the former as it was identical to the one previously deleted for reason G5. For obvious reasons, I have also indeffed the creator of this version (who also re-uploaded the same images). Equally, I toyed with the idea of draftifying the latter article but I've now deleted that as well. ] 13:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: Thank you for checking on this {{u|Black Kite}}. Is there any way a non-admin can "check" to see whether there were deleted files and articles which were subsequently recreated under the same name? I tried the ], but it seems as if the recreation of the pages somehow "removed" any record of their deletion from the log. -- ] (]) 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] when you look at the history you can see it's deletion history up top under View Logs for this page. ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 13:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thanks for that. I didn't know about that. -- ] (]) 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hello, ], you can also search here, ], although it will only identify deleted pages with the exact title you are looking for. It will not help with variations on a page title. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Thanks for that bit of info. -- ] (]) 03:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Non-admins can't use Special:Undelete. ] (]) 03:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], I know it won't show deleted content but I thought it would show an editor that there had been a page at the specified target that had been deleted. It would show that a page had existed but was deleted, kind of like a page log would. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Unfortunately it does not, but ] does something similar. ] (]) 07:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sorry, it looks like I was mistaken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Permissions Removal == | |||
| == Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse == | |||
| {{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. — ] ] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Most of you have probably seen threads here or on the incidents board about MidAtlanticBaby (MAB for short), a long-term attention troll who targets the ] and ]. They're the one that rapidly cycles through open proxies to repost their whine about being banned everywhere and blocked on IRC and not getting responses when they email the Foundation. They're banned from all those channels because any attempt to communicate with them is met with spamming death threats to the user, . Don't try to talk to them, ] is the only appropriate response. | |||
| For the past couple weeks they've been spamming those two new user pages. Look through the history and you'll see many instances of an IP posting a message in an alternate unicode font, being reverted and blocked, and a new IP restoring the message within minutes. This can go on for hours, and only stops if the page is protected, which of course means that legitimate new users also can't post to those pages. | |||
| Earlier in the week I set both pages to pending changes, thinking that this would allow new users to post through PC moderation but also starve MAB of the attention they crave. It seems to be working - they are active but have not tried to post on those pages - but at the same time there have not been many legitimate posts from anonymous users hitting the moderation queue either. {{ul|Pigsonthewing}} asked on the Teahouse talk page to remove the protection, and other users have suggested that we should just let MAB run amok since someone has to revert them anyway even if their edits are paused in the PC queue. I'm on the fence myself if the protection is net positive. | |||
| I'd like to hear what other users think. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I was actually just combing through the logs to look at who implemented pending changes, to start a discussion with them. I don't think pending changes really makes sense in this specific circumstance, since MAB's ostensible goal is to harass specific editors, and logged-in editors can see their posts through PC protection regardless of whether those posts have been approved or not, so PC doesn't really do anything to protect MAB's main targets. ] ]] 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I think admins should be free tho deal with MAB as they see fit: short protections, blocks, and why not pending changes protection? There is no ideal solution, and being flexible in responses is a way to go imho. My take on pending changes has always been that it takes out the "immediate reward" part of trolling...I actually let the pending changes review lag for some minutes before reverting; some people have short attention spans. Anyway: pending changes is another way to deal with him, I would just shorten the time of protection. ] (]) 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:To be clear, I'm not opposed ''in principle'' to PC protection being used for this purpose (and certainly I don't think there was anything untoward with Ivanvector's use of it), I'm just unsure of the efficacy. ] ]] 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I didn't take it as being against pending-changes protection in principle; I just think that there's no right way to go about it, but also no wrong way. And as the WMF isn't moving, we are stuck with the instruments we have. ] (]) 15:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ec}} As one of MAB's favorites, I understand the frustration in dealing with him. (Look at the > 100,000 byte edits on my talk page for examples.) I am pleased that he's found other ways to express himself while being saddened that others have to clean up his messes. What worked on my talk page was very brief semi protection combined with RBI and proxy blocks. Wish I had something better to offer. ] (]) 15:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm more or less in agreement with Writ Keeper. I don't want to go into too many details about how I normally try and deal with them, and unfortunately there's very limited ways to get admin coordination on the response. | |||
| :I'm more concerned that this harassment can keep up for months and there's no support from WMF to get the lists of residential proxies they're using, e.g. vpngate and massblock them. That shouldn't be foisted onto individual communities and bot operators. There are other LTAs that use similar methods to harass people, including non-editors, and we really need to be able to shut that down. ] (]) 14:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Amen, brother. Amen. ] (]) 15:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I echo ScottishFinnishRadish's point that we need more support to deal with long-term abuse like this. It's time-consuming and exhausting for admins to handle, and this is clearly MAB's goal. Well, that and to normalise death threats. MAB has kept this up for literally months, if (perhaps) not years. And admins shouldn't have to deal with this garbage. Every approach I've seen so far has simply moved him from one venue to another, but hasn't meaningfully reduced the frequency. I think if we bulk shut down all VPNgate proxies, that has a ''chance'' of working. I don't think anything less than this has a chance, but I support any attempts, including Ivanvector's approach. We need a much firmer approach with MAB. --] (]) 15:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I think PC is the least bad option here. ] (]) 15:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is exactly what I mentioned ], which includes more resources from WMF to support admins dealing with persistent, long-term abuse. ]] 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Double amen on getting the proxies list. Ridiculous that we don't have it. — ] ] 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Putting PC on the Teahouse in particular has a detrimental effect on its target audience - new, inexperienced users. As I said in the original discussion, if used in the case described, it should be for hours at a time, not a month. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. MAB gets frustrated quickly and moves along. ] (]) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The conundrum here is that if we protect for a short amount of time, or for a long time, MAB comes back within hours of the protection expiring. I agree that our goal here is to limit the disruption to new users, and I guess the question is: is it more disruptive to new users to have to submit their questions to a queue for approval (pending changes), or not be able to submit questions at all for a period of time (semiprotection), or to be frustrated by edit conflicts when MAB is active and spamming the page? We don't have a lot of good options here. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think pending changes works perfectly well for this and don't really understand the opposition to it. It's not like newbies posting at the teahouse get immediate responses. They can also survive not getting immediate posting access. But semi-protection for an extended period of time is a bad idea, imo. -- ] (]) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For me, the issue is that they're normally reverted and blocked very quickly. Adding PC to that adds additional labor even when they're not actively trying to disrupt the noticeboards. I don't strongly object to PC, but I don't think it's actually benefiting us. ] (]) 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hm, that's fair. I don't really feel like periodically approving some pending changes is a lot of work, but I see what you mean. I'll be the "don't strongly support" to your "don't strongly object". -- ] (]) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::A question in that vein: are users seeing a message that discourages them from editing pages under PC protection? I haven't been able to check, I'm on a corporate VPN. I can report that the message that logged-out editors get on proxy-blocked IPs ''is'' fairly discouraging. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Logged into my testalt{{snd}}appears there's a list of info with the following wording: | |||
| ::::::::"Note: Edits to this page from new or unregistered users are subject to review prior to publication (help link). | |||
| :::::::: | |||
| ::::::::The latest accepted version was reviewed on xyz date. There are x pending revisions awaiting review. | |||
| ::::::::The edit form below includes changes that have not yet been accepted. (show those changes)" | |||
| ::::::::It's all listed next to an information icon, so no red warning signs or (excessively) giant text for what it's worth. I can't say whether or not that deters any editors, though. ] (]) 02:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I know the edit filter is not a fix-all solution, but might it be useful in this case? --] (]) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Without going into detail, it's already being used. ] ]] 19:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I see. Well, in that case, (1) I would certainly defer to the judgement of people dealing with this user, but (2) if outside opinions are actively being solicited, I think I come down on the side of making Teahouse and Help desk more available to new editors, even if it means having to deal with more MAB posts. If we keep pending changes, asking more PCR's to watch both pages for legit questions might help. If we remove PC, then asking more admins to watch those pages and RBI might help. That's ... pretty useless advice, but it's all I've got. ] (]) 19:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm an administrator with over 11,600 edits to the Teahouse and it is definitely frustrating to deal with this driven individual. Rapid reverting and blocking is the obvious approach and trying to engage is an especially poor idea in this particular case. Personally, I find pending changes a clunky solution that may well deter new good faith editors. I agree with Floquenbeam that more adminstrator eyes on the Teahouse and the Help Desk would be a good thing, and if this conversation accomplishes that, then that is a positive outcome. ] (]) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I do not recommend engagement. It proved counter productive. ] (]) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ec}} I thought I saw your face come up in the header yesterday. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If possible, I immediately unwatch all pages under PC (I really, really hate PC) so I am no longer watching the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Certainly protection of any kind for newbie-facing pages like these should be as short as possible. If we are fighting a single troll, I expect they will sleep every now and then so protection should be not longer than 16 or 20 hours at a time. —] (]) 22:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| My suggested approach to this type of individual has always that the Foundation should bring a legal proceeding seeking injunctive relief. I do not know whether that might be practicable in this instance nor whether the possibility has been explored. ] (]) 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I admit to some curiosity about how this would be possible but it seems like a ] issue to discuss here. -- ] (]) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I think we're in agreement here that protection on these pages is not ideal, especially not ''long'' protection. I'll lower it on both pages momentarily. Might I suggest that when MAB shows up again, short periods of PC would be preferred to short periods of semi? Or is consensus that we should not protect these pages at all and revert when needed instead? ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think we should at the very least protect the pages for long enough to get them to go elsewhere. I don't think that needs to be a long time - 10 or 15 minutes worked for me last time. -- ] (]) 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::''If'' we protect, it should be PC, not semi. Don't want to close the door on a newbie. That could have a lasting effect on the editor. — ] ] 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::And we don't care about the effect on established editors? ] (]) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I emailed {{u|JKoerner (WMF)}} a couple of weeks ago after seeing ]. I gave brief examples of abuse and wrote {{tq|Asking "have you felt unsafe or uncomfortable contributing to Misplaced Pages" is not appropriate when such extreme abuse cannot be prevented.}} I received a nice reply but do not expect anything further. It is past time for the community to push the WMF. We need a statement that they exist to spend money on maintenance or on marketing. ] (]) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Do you think they have any money to spare?{{sarcasm}} — ] ] 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{nacc}} Wouldn't it be wise to discuss further this wherever admins discuss LTA matters, i.e. maybe in a less public forum? Perhaps there's a chat or something? I'm not trying to prevent non-administrators from offering opinions, but it should probably be assumed that most LTA are aware of these noticeboards and the talk pages of the pages they're disrupting and are monitoring them to see what steps are going to be taken. The Help Desk was unprotected and the posts starting appearing right away. If ] is what needs to be done with respect to LTA, then even a discussion such as this seems to somewhat be giving the LTA what its wants. -- ] (]) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I mean, but what if they don't, ] (]) 07:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 15.ai behavioral issues. == | |||
| {{atop|result=I'm going to be bold and close this discussion as it has descended into evidence-free accusations and conspiracy theories by relatively new accounts. This is not what ] is for which are questions that need to be considered by the administrator community like block reviews, unban requests and larger questions about the project. This is not a free-form discussion forum. If you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, make a report at ]. If you believe there is vandalism going on, make a report at ]. But, as I said, cases like this belong at ] and I encourage this complaint to be reposted on that noticeboard. But know that continuing to make accusations against other editors without providing evidence could lead to a block of your account for making personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|HackerKnownAs}} | |||
| {{userlinks|RocketKnightX}} | |||
| {{pagelinks|15.ai}} | |||
| The article ] has numerous issues which I have called attention to on the talkpage. . The article was recently subject to an edit war which made it to DRN ], however, the process has ultimately failed as after the moderator instructed editors to implement the change as ] a clear ] who demonstrates ] behavior toward the article arrived and has reverted the agreed upon edits as well as reintroduced multiple problems to the article in terms of misrepresented sources as well as sources which are considered unreliable. The editor in question has characterized my removal of unreliable sources as {{tq|removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning}} despite the fact that the sources I removed were declared unreliable per ] or in the case of Andrew Ng's The Batch, were marked as unreliable when the article was still a draft {{tq|A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng}}, but once the article was released from Draftspace the editor who is now vanished reinserted Andrew Ng as an erroneously flagged minor edit . Likewise, at the recent request for protection the user has presented my conduct as a {{tq|large amount of nonconstructive edits}}. The ] for the article was interfered with by ] vote-stuffing. Other concerning events include the wholesale deletion of a talk page thread about potential ] editing by a now-blocked IP editor . Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the ] and the continued edit warring by ] and ] from ], I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard. --<b>]</b> 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am currently away from my computer at the moment, but I would like to point out that it is very interesting that this user has conveniently omitted any mention of her accusatory, sanctimonious, and frankly alienating behavior (despite being a relatively new editor herself) that she has been called out for in the past. I will make a more detailed post when I get back, but I urge anyone reading this to take a look at the article’s edit history (and note the perennial participant of the persistent edit wars in the last few months) as well as her alienating comments on ] and wonder why she neglected to mention how she refused to elaborate on her unfounded accusations based solely on circumstantial evidence. ] (]) 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :RocketKnightX seems to lack the sufficient maturity to edit Misplaced Pages, judging by the comments like . ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 02:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this situation is more relevant to ANI than AN if you would like to move it to that noticeboard. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: +1. Thanks for summarizing the recent edit wars, the most recent seem to involve experienced trolling as well. Suitable for ]. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 03:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus. | |||
| :Note that all of are related to AI and 4chan, which is how this mess started in the first place. | |||
| :See also , the GAN reviewer, only edits are to chess topics and 15.ai. ] (]) 04:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not know this person and I have never interacted with them. What are you people on about? Do the admins not see that these people are actively discouraging people from contributing to Misplaced Pages with this dishonest conduct? This kind of harassment needs to stop. ] (]) 04:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a tactic HackerKnownAs often engages in, accuse everyone of everything and see what sticks. (Also, you don't need to interact with someone to tag-team with them.) ] (]) 04:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have always attempted to be cordial when interacting with editors on Misplaced Pages. I have also tried to always assume good faith as per ], but the OP seems to not have the same courtesy, as she feels the need to throw out repeated baseless accusations of COI and SPA editing to multiple editors (]), repeatedly bringing up other editors' contribution histories and patterns (]), and having an underlying hostile tone in repeatedly questioning others' credibility and motives (]). Also, possibly a violation of ] (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?. | |||
| ::::I do not know what incidents you are referring to when you say I "often engage" in accusatory and underhanded behavior. I really am bothered by this entire exchange. | |||
| ::::And to repeat, '''I do not know who RocketKnightX is and I have never collaborated with them.''' I have interacted with SirGallantThe4th only when requesting a GA review, and have not interacted with him since other than when the article was under GA review, as was expected. ] (]) 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::> Also, possibly a violation of WP:OUTING (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?. | |||
| :::::So you admit you've engaged in off-wiki co-ordination? ] (]) 05:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, I have '''never''' engaged in off-wiki coordination; I invite anyone here to scrutinize my edit history. I mostly stay around articles that I find more comfortable writing about. There is nothing wrong with that. | |||
| ::::::I am frankly disturbed that this is even being suggested when I have made major contributions to several articles in my spare time. It seems hypocritical that OP dismisses IP editors' positions as inconsequential (as well as those of SPA editors), yet faces no backlash when these same "suspicious" editors support her position. There is a clear double standard happening here and I simply have not been paying enough attention to the politics of Misplaced Pages to point out every single time she has been doing this. ] (]) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So, no violation of outing. Understood. ] (]) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::], this is the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just because this is an open discussion doesn't mean you can cast aspersions and accuse editors of misconduct without providing evidence. If this continues, you will be facing a block. Like a registered account, you must abide by Civility, even when discussing disagreements. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ok, understood. I will look for evidence. ] (]) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like many disputes in Misplaced Pages, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute. I acted as the mediator for discussion of the content dispute at ]. The content dispute concerned what should be listed as the status of the web site in the infobox. The DRN thread was ]. (The filing editor was then indefinitely blocked for conduct unrelated to ], and I continued the mediation because there were still editors in good standing who had a content dispute.) RocketKnightX was listed as one of the editors, and made a brief opening statement, but did not take part in further discussions until the other editors reached an agreement to say that the web site had been abandoned. The article was revised as discussed. At this point RocketKnightX reverted the revision and disagreed. I asked RocketKnightX if they wanted to take part in moderated discussion, but they did not answer. Since there was disagreement as to content that could not be resolved by discussion, I first asked if I should start an RFC, and then launched an RFC. The RFC is currently in progress at ]. The content dispute should be resolved by allowing the RFC to run for a month. ] (]) 05:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::good one brocade make the brigading more obvious | |||
| ::the gaslighting in this thread is insane yall are why i left the server lmfao its screwed up ] (]) 00:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See . | |||
| :, RocketKnightX reverts 15.ai one last time and disappears. | |||
| :, HackerKnownAs returns from 18 day absence ( was defending 15.ai) and requests page protection of 15.ai. . | |||
| :These two edit 15.ai when the other is absent. | |||
| :See . | |||
| :SirGallantThe4th reviews 15.ai in '''1 hour and 24 minutes''', after 1 response from HackerKnownAs. | |||
| :(, <'''51 minute''' gap>, , <'''33 minute''' gap>, ) | |||
| :This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination. ] (]) 06:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, none of that is evidence. I've seen quicker GA reviews, start to finish—in fact, a recent one of mine, ], took 29 minutes from opening to closing. I hope you're not accusing myself and the reviewer of off-wiki coordination? ] (]) 10:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course not. The difference being you're not a single purpose account. ] (]) 10:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :just so yall know, theres a discord server thats been trying to troll this community over the last half year trying to get this page removed by sockpuppeting and getting anyone who reverts it banned and the op (brocade) is in on it, notice the young account ages of the edit war actors and ip accs all over here ] (]) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::im replying with my ip cause i want to prove im not on an alt btw ] (]) 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't believe you for a second, but email your evidence to the Arbritration Committee at arbcom-en{{@}}wikimedia.org if you're telling the truth. ] (]) 03:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did think it was especially peculiar that editors are acting so hostile and trying to discredit people who are just trying to help Misplaced Pages by spinning up accusations out of nowhere (for example, the above IP editor falsely claiming that I am a single purpose account when I've received multiple thanks from various other editors for my contributions). I am not surprised at all that there has been a coordinated effort behind this. | |||
| ::This article has been treated as a ] with only one side consistently being the aggressor. ] (]) 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I have found this: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361116#p361116 | |||
| :It appears that this user in question (]) has a history of sockpuppeting/alting and virulently defending ideologically driven edits, particularly those related to Yasuke, while engaging in hostile and aggressive behavior towards other users who disagree with their position. I would very much like an admin to look into the disruptive editing patterns and possible sockpuppeting activities of this user, particularly in relation to the ongoing edit wars and harassment on the article. | |||
| :This blatant dogpiling should not be tolerated on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're really good at steering the topic away from yourself. Point is, you are still reverting against consensus on 15.ai. ] (]) 04:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am certain you are part of the circle of sockpuppetry that was mentioned in the link above. You have been nothing but consistently hostile toward me and are happy to fabricate evidence if it means trying to discredit me, which is exactly what BrocadeRiverPoems has done as well. This behavior is appalling. ] (]) 04:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Where have I fabricated evidence? | |||
| ::::As for some mysterious "circle of sockpuppetry", bullshit. You mean to tell me that SuperStain, Thought 1915, Ltbdl, Brocade River Poems, Aaron Liu, North8000, Sj, BarrelProof, DrawWikiped, and Cooldudeseven7 are all socks? If anyone has a "circle of sockpuppetry" it's you and Rin6626, a 4 hour old account who's only edits have been to make wild claims about Brocade River Poems, which you also have been doing. ] (]) 04:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == ftools is back! == | |||
| == Arbitration motions regarding ''Palestine-Israel articles'' == | |||
| 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) | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: | |||
| ;]: | |||
| {{ivmbox|When imposing a ] under the ], an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the ]. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.}} | |||
| :{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;]: | |||
| :Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox|Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the ] of restrictions within the ]. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.}} | |||
| ;]: | |||
| {{ivmbox|All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will ] two years from the date of its passage.}} | |||
| == Block appeal for ] == | |||
| ;]: | |||
| {{atop | |||
| {{ivmbox|1=Following a request at ], the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the ] topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case: | |||
| | status = unblock denied | |||
| * The case title will be '']''. | |||
| * The initial parties will be: | |||
| **{{User|BilledMammal}} | |||
| **{{User|Iskandar323}} | |||
| **{{User|Levivich}} | |||
| **{{User|Nableezy}} | |||
| **{{User|PeleYoetz}} | |||
| **{{User|Selfstudier}} | |||
| **{{User|האופה}} | |||
| * {{U|Aoidh}} will be the initial drafter | |||
| * The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline. | |||
| * All case pages are to be semi-protected. | |||
| * Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to {{nospam|Arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}. Any links to the English Misplaced Pages submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.}} | |||
| | 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) | |||
| ;Addendum | |||
| }} | |||
| In passing motion #5 to open a ''Palestine-Israel articles 5'' case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: ], ], and ]. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals: | |||
| 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: | |||
| * {{User|BilledMammal}} | |||
| * {{User|Iskandar323}} | |||
| * {{User|Ïvana}} | |||
| * {{User|Levivich}} | |||
| * {{User|Nableezy}} | |||
| * {{User|Selfstudier}} | |||
| * {{User|האופה}} | |||
| * {{User|AndreJustAndre}} | |||
| * {{User|IOHANNVSVERVS}} | |||
| * {{User|Alaexis}} | |||
| * {{User|Zero0000}} | |||
| * {{User|Makeandtoss}} | |||
| * {{User|Snowstormfigorion}} | |||
| :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. | |||
| The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase. | |||
| :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. | |||
| The related '']'' request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the '']'' case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately. | |||
| :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. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles}}'''<!-- ] (]) 05:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == Change to the CheckUser team, November 2024 == | |||
| :Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| At their request, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser permissions of {{userlinks|Spicy}}. | |||
| ] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (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) | |||
| == Titleblacklisted page creation request == | |||
| :* '''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">[]]</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">[]]</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.—] <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.—] <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) | |||
| I would like to request the creation of ], to translate jawiki good article . ] <small> (]) </small> 23:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. —] 23:53, 15 November 2024 (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. — ] ] 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 == | ||
| Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| Could someone with the permission to add and edit these links please change the link at the bottom of the ] article from <code>infowars'''(dot)'''com/contributors</code> to <code>infowars'''(dot)'''com/</code>, because the contributors page doesn't exist at the moment. Thank you. ] (]'''-''']) 02:53, 16 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :You should make a request at ]. ] (]/]) 02:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well that's ... not how I thought this works. I don't want it whitelisted everywhere. Guess that's not possible then. Thanks. ] (]'''-''']) 03:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::: The /contributors link is whitelisted everywhere. We don't normally whitelist domain roots for reasons explained at ] ] ] 04:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Apparently we can use "{{tq|a neutral landing page like the site's "about" or "information" page}}". Their /about page is online; I'll go ahead and request a whitelisting for that. Thanks Pppery. ] (]'''-''']) 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 == | |||
| == Need an RFC closed == | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| ] has been open for about a hundred days now, with no comments for the last couple of weeks. It's the oldest discussion listed at ]. It's a long discussion, but I don't think it's the most difficult, so please let me encourage you to write a nice summary for us. Thank you, ] (]) 06:34, 16 November 2024 (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: | |||
| :How did it go unnoticed for so long? ] (]) 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox|1= | |||
| == Abusive message from ip user == | |||
| The ] are amended by adding the following section: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ; 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 ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. | |||
| Not sure if this is the right place to report a user, but I've just received an abusive message from this IP user – | |||
| 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. | |||
| There are no contributions on their page, so I can't figure out why they have done this?.. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| }} | |||
| ] | |||
| Thanks – 🏴 ''']''' (] 09:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The IP has only made a single edit but I blocked the 2600:1700:DF20:1A40:0:0:0:0/64 range for a month. People can change IPs and it does not matter who is behind the IP. Best to ignore them. The right place to report this is ] but here is fine. ] (]) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent IDHT and fabricating Misplaced Pages policy == | |||
| I'm currently dealing with a ridiculous situation in which an editor is supposedly propagating their own wishes of what Misplaced Pages policy should be, demanding that I abide by it, refusing to acknowledge actual Misplaced Pages policy guidelines, and what very clearly appears to be playing dumb to elicit frustration. | |||
| and I laid out a comprehensive case on why the figure at hand '''objectively''' as per Misplaced Pages policy does not constitute a . These interviews were detailed in length in ''The Globe and Mail'' and ''CTV'' and various other Indian news outlets, which I explained on that talk page. I also explained there was extensive media coverage surronding the figure in question dating back at least January 2023, fulfilling another requriement of ]. | |||
| alleging that in order to write about accusations or charges laid against a person not yet '''convicted''' of a crime (aka where the person may have been arrested and charged but the case had not yet get gone to trial or a conviction in the trial was pending) , I first needed to establish that the person was notable independent of any reports of accusations of wrongdoing. I '''repeatedly''' asked Simonm223 to provide me a policy page or quotes from a policy page which backed that up, but was met with radio silence each time. Instead of doing so, he just threw out various accusations of IDHT, despite that fact that I had provided 2 key elements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE, whereas he did not provide any relevant quote. | |||
| I also detailed examples where we do indeed name and detail accusations/charges against a person who had not been convicted of a crime; on my talk page, I brought up how we named Derek Chauvin and the charges laid against him in the George Floyd page a few months after the page was created, despite the fact that he was a private citizen, not yet convicted of the crime at that time, who did not attain any notability outside of the killing. | |||
| Both on my t/p and the article talk page, Simonm repeated these claims {{tq|Absolutely not. As I mentioned at arbitration enforcement and at your user talk page it is a direct contravention of WP:BLPCRIME to put content up on Misplaced Pages that indicates a non-WP:PUBLICFIGURE is suspected of crimes for which they have not been convicted. Furthermore, as detailed at arbitration enforcement, one cannot be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE simply for having been accused of a crime. Based on these two statements we should leave out anything that would imply that any person associated with Hardeep Singh Nijjar is accused of crimes until such time as they stand trial or they become a politician, celebrity or other independently well-known person.}} despite the fact that nowhere in WP:BLPCRIME or WP:PUBLICFIGURE does it state that. | |||
| After I demonstrably proved how the figure in question did in fact receive extensive media coverage for years and objectively cannot be considered a low profile figure, Simonm then claimed {{tq|I gave you the policy in question. Your response is a text wall that boils down to "they do it on other pages" which is not a compelling point on Misplaced Pages. Lots of stuff happens on other pages that shouldn't.}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't believe Simonm is acting in good faith here, he seems to be knowingly ignoring the policy I'm citing and demanding that I just abide by his own personal preferences. ] (]) 10:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
Latest revision as of 09:16, 11 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| 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 | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 14 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 33 | 15 | 48 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 12 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 30 sockpuppet investigations
- 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 3 requests for RD1 redaction
- 84 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 18 requested closures
- 42 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 11 Copyright problems
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:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)- Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- WP:MOS says:
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' asAccident. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 statedAirliner 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)
- 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.
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)
- Warn both to drop the stick, otherwise, no action at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hands FOARP two trouts You want to hand them out, or me? Buffs (talk) 16:32, 9 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 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)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Mr.Choppers warning request
- This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
- calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
- responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
- note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
- also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
- Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan
Already closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of WP:GS/AA at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) § Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Cannot draftify page
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 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)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment 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 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
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
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 )
- 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
- 13:39, 25 December 2024: 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."
- 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
- 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
- 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
- 14:39, 25 December 2024 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"
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
- 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
- 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
- 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, 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.)
- 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
- 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa
- 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
- 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
- 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
- 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
- 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
---
- 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
- 14:17, 29 December 2024 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. --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)
- 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)
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)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- 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)
- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 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)
- 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 revert 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 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. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
- 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 my reasons for being late to this party?
- Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
- Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
- Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
- Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 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. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 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)
- 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
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)
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 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:
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
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)
- From WP:EW;
- 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)
- This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
An inappropriate template being added to many pages
- Oct13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
- 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)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
- 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)
- (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. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs 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 on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 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. -- asilvering (talk) 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 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. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?
ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 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)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are
- @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: 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)
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 would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 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)
- @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 think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (
- 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)
- Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Hide this racist edit.
| 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)
|
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)
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)
ftools is back!
I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel
UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
- I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
- While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
- My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "
The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.
". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
- Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 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. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to re-check. Here, 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 WP:AGF. Nxcrypto Message 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 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 indicatessomeone 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:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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