Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:44, 7 January 2008 view sourceDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →So I just got offered money (via email) to edit Misplaced Pages: several offers exists, some posted in WP: clearer← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:04, 9 January 2025 view source Nthep (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators110,689 edits Adding {{pp-vandalism}}Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
<div align="center">{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}</div>
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
|algo = old(7d)
{{User:MercuryBot/config
|counter = 368
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|counter = 119
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}} }}
--><!--
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
__TOC__
=Current issues=
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->


----------------------------------------------------------
== Waterboarding ==
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>
{{User:Avruch/collapse-top}}


==Open tasks==
Could some experienced users please watchlist ]. It has become a major target for POV pushing due to political events in the ] and possibly the 2008 presidential election. Our page ranks first in Google. We've had a wave of ] that appear to be pushing the idea that waterboarding isn't torture. There is an ongoing ]. The reliable sources thus far ] state that waterboarding is a form of torture. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
:I'll add it to my watchlist.--] (]) 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
:This made #6 of a top ten list of ] legal fictions; see {{cite web
{{Clear}}
|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2179934/pagenum/all/
{{Admin tasks}}
|title=Legal Fictions: The Bush administration's dumbest legal arguments of the year
__TOC__
|first=Dahlia
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
|last=Lithwick
|publisher=Slate
|date=2007-12-28}} I've poked my head in at ] periodically and was surprised the article was in the right state each time. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
I agree, more eyes there would be helpful - there seems to be a very concerted effort to question the status of waterboarding as torture. I first came to the article after seeing the RfC, and have made a few comments over there, but I'm not a long term editor of it and I don't know all the dynamics.


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
I'm a bit concerned by one SPA, {{User|Neutral Good}}, in particular. This user has seem to be most active of the SPAs: He has already make several unhelpful comments (for example like ,) , which doesn't help to work towards establishing a consensus and assuming bad faith against other users (, ). I would not be surprised if he turned out to be a sock, given his apparent knowledge of the site, but of whom I have no idea. A checkuser was run against Haizum, but came ]. This user has also created ] which he canvassed support for at , and . And he has accomplished all this within . Frankly, I'm not sure his presence is helping the encyclopedia. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
Not an administrator, but more eyes (and fingers) would indeed be good, especially eyes that think a good article about waterboarding could be written without the POV phrase "waterboarding is torture" as or in the opening sentence of the lead. There is indeed a POV being pushed there, and that's what it is. A popular POV, supported by many, but still a POV. ] (]) 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
: I have warned ] to stop the disruption and encouragement of vote stacking. I have also started a request for checkuser regarding all the SPAs. ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
:: I have now blocked ] 24 hours for continued harassment after these comments and after being warned in quite clear terms . Review is of course appreciated. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In regards to his comments about my liberally giving everyone who "dares to disagree" with me "body cavity searches at checkuser", I asked for checks on two apparent socks. , turned out to be the blocked sockpuppetry ]. My guess was right but about a day or two early. There a few people I disagree with on that talk page for waterboarding, but I haven't tried to body cavity search anyone else, and have been discussing things out rationally. Neutral Good sounded (to me, anyway) like Haizum, who had gotten to the point of harassing me before. On the other, the 209 IP in question I saw had been heavily used by some notorious banned user that pushed extreme Right-wing POV and ended up blocked, for socking from that very IP address, among other things. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
:::Administrators please remain on the scene. We will need somebody to close the ] and declare a result when sufficient time has passed. It could perhaps be ] now because the result seems very obvious. Once that happens, we should unprotect the article and start blocking those who tendentiously POV push against the consensus result. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
Discussion has been going nowhere, and has been rife with disruptive argumentation. Here are some recent examples (not an exhaustive list, but illustrative):


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.
* '''Ad hominem arguments'''
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""


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.
* '''Assumptions of bad faith'''
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""


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.
* '''False implication of consensus'''
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""


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?
* '''Nitpicking'''
:* ]: ""


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
* '''Non sequiturs'''
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Personal attacks'''
: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)
:* ]: . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


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


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Straw men'''
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""
:* ]: ""


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
I am not claiming that all of these are instances of abuse, but all of these (and more) have been generally disruptive to any productive progress on the article. (Naturally, I have a blind spot to my own errors, so do not assume that the absence of my own edits from this list means my behaviour has been flawless.) All of this is just to say that this article and its discussion are badly in need of help. —] (]) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've changed the references in the above to user:htom to the more useable User:OtterSmith, and happily invite people to read the entire diffs. I'm tempted to add to the list, but that might be considered torturous. ] (]) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (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)
===IP range ban evasion?===
: 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)
A Sprint Wireless user who seems to be able to switch IPs at will is haranging me at my talk page (bottom section) and also Jehochman on the talk page of waterboarding, implying that Misplaced Pages will face nonsensical repercussions with the government. This is also an IP that is checkuser confirmed (see the Goose Creek RFCU above) from the IP range of the user that was blocked for using multiple sock puppets on Waterboarding. This IP range is leaving comments and POV pushing all over the talk pages, and it seems... implausible that one article would suddenly attract multiple users of the same ISP that all conveniently have the same POV and general language. Would a range block be appropriate? For example, in ] this section alone, he immediately replies with two unique IP address from the same ISP. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with Lawrence, the IP user looks like he's evading a block. Since I've commented at ] I shouldn't take any admin action here. ] (]) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
{{User:Avruch/collapse-bottom}}


@] 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)
===Article probation===
In the past only ArbCom has been able to place an article on probation. With ] we have a swarm of ] and apparent ] trying to bring a political dispute onto Misplaced Pages. See ], ] and ], and Akhilleus' comment immediately above. As the US presidential election approaches, the problem will only get worse. I believe ] would be a big help. Given that the community has the power to indefinitely ban a user, it seems like we should also have the power to establish lesser remedies, such as topic bans or article probation, when no administrator objects. Two questions:
# Does the community have the power to establish ]?
# Would anybody object to placing Waterboarding on article probation?
Absent a consensus to do something here, I suspect that this matter will go to arbitration eventually. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support.''' Having looked up what article probation can entail, I absolutely support enforced probation on the article, and all related pages indefinitely. This is just going to escalate further and further into the 2008 elections and beyond. Can this be also used to encompass some sort of heightened watch for sockpuppetry there? There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the ] article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious ''identical'' ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. It's a tremendous coincidence that ''all'' these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language ''all'' arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus fight" began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell ] for you too, that's only moderately used. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''', obviously. It's quite a mess over there. &#10154;]! 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As an admin who has been keeping an eye on the article, I feel something like this is needed to facilitate constructive discussion. But less involved people may want to express an opinion on question 1 above: "Does the community have the power to establish article probation?" <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Not Yet'''. Not an admin so maybe I don't count here, but I just do not see the problem as big a deal as needing some sort of exceptional remedy toward users. There is ALOT going on there, but much if it is regular users, not socks. If a regular user is doing badly, I think that there are standard remedies for that. And if it involves new types of authorities, I certainly do not agree that admins should take new powers to themselves without a general community consensus for that. --] (]) 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:* Your opinion is welcome, and if your reasoning is convincing you may sway the discussion, though it does not serve as a veto. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Not Yet''' Having survived two RFCUs in a week with consecutive findings of {{unrelated}}, I will observe that Lawrence Cohen is attempting to ] the article, and enlist the help of admins with false (or, at the very least) exaggerated accusations. He brought all of his friends over from the ] article, and they are attempting to completely disregard a substantial minority of expert opinion stating that waterboarding is not torture in all cases, including ], ] and Congressman ]. I believe that patient work on the article's Talk page may produce a consensus, but admins need to be advised that Lawrence does not come before you with clean hands. All of his friends from ] somehow found their way to ]. And I'll add that ] is a relatively new SPA who seems to agree with them about everything. Make of that what you will. ] (]) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:*Neutral Good is a ] that has repeatedly tried to spin the ] article to introduce doubts that waterboarding may not be torture. See ] for many examples in the current discussion. Neutral good has been editing ], has been editing ] and is attempting to violate ] by making disingenuous assertions of consensus. The account has also nominated a proven sock puppeteer for adminship. (deleted contributions, only admins can view) I suggest that Neutral Good is neither. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:* Neutral Good has already collected warnings from ''multiple'' editors for a variety of offenses, and has been blocked once in his short existence. You can look in his talk page history, as he has archived/erased all warnings. The user has also engaged in low-level harassment of me. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::* Lawrence and Inertia Tensor are also in the habit of deleting not only warnings, but tough questions from multiple users from their Talk pages, as their archives will confirm. ] (]) 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*You were explicitly warned by an administrator in this conversation to stop harassing users. I beg you to stop harassment of Misplaced Pages editors. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' I'm responding to Jehochman's question on whether the community can impose article probation. We already have criteria for when page protection is justified, and page protection does not require an Arbcom ruling. Can anyone put into words what additional requirements should be imposed for community-authorized article probation? Should we want to see diffs for a specific kind of misbehavior? How many misbehaving editors should it take? I don't see a new process of this kind being respected by Arbcom unless they see that some appropriate evidence is being collected before the community decides to impose article probation. If article probation goes into effect, admins should be willing to impose blocks to back it up. Guess who is the ultimate reviewer for due process on blocks. Does anyone want to ignore their usual expectations? Under what conditions would Arbcom itself impose article probation? ] (]) 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:*One criteria would be: when there are multiple ] editors seeking to violate ], especially when there are signs of sock puppetry and meat puppetry. This happens on heated topics like ], and now, I suggest, ]. Another criteria would be: when normal administrative measures fail to control problematic editing, article probation can be useful. This is a judgement call. In obvious cases we would be able to impose this solution the same way we can do ]. These criteria could be added to ]. In the alternative, we can take this matter to arbitration. I do not think that one or two blocks will solve the problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::*Comment Not an administrator and involved, but I'm inclined to think that both sides will claim that there were "multiple tendentious editors seeking to violate NPOV"; "they" think that they're defending NPOV, while "we" think we're trying to establish NPOV. "When normal administrative measures fail to control problematic editing" could be a symptom of ]] (]) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*I agree that the community has the right to impose article probation on any article it so wishes, and that this article merits it. The probation can't hurt and it will probably help sort out an almighty mess. ] <sup> ]</sup> 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* I think the rules pointed out by Moreschi below would be helpful in this case, and seeing that there is precedent for the kind of administrator imposed editing restrictions we are thinking about here I think we should go ahead and adopt them to this case. Arbcom already trusts admins to establish ground rules on wide ranges of articles in conflicted areas, and I think this is in that spirit. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' Article protection is a sufficient short-term remedy for articles. When the situation spins so far out of control that protection is insufficient, I would be grateful to have Arbcom look at the case and decide what the best solution is; the alternative seems too much like allowing any administrator who happens by to declare martial law. --] ] 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Ryan. This easily could spread like ] across the whole wiki with disastrous results. We should stick with our current article protection procedures. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
===Unprotection===
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If article probation is agreed, then I suggest we unprotect ] within a few days. It is better for the encyclopedia if people can edit this high importance article. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:The swift option would be to unprotect ''right now'', apply article probation ''right now'' and a variant of , also ''right now''. Hopefully we can get consensus on this quickly, but for such a high-profile article to be fully protected with that ugly box on the top is not good for Misplaced Pages's image. ] <sup> ]</sup> 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
* Tough call. Discussion and {{tl|editprotected}} are probably better for the reader, at this point. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*I think it was protected too fast, but since it has gone on, I now say, let the protection extend to its current expiration. I also think that unblocking without steps toward consensus will eventually lead to Arbcom. I do not believe that restricting the page will help that. --] (]) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
===Allegations of Checkuser errors and administrative coverups===
{{atop
, comments by ]:
| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:''"That's what I'm saying. The IP address is being taken as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shibumi2 is an evil puppet master. And every time anyone tries to raise this question about these dynamic, shared Sprint IP addresses, the question gets deleted. Fast. What's going on? ] (]) 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)"''
}}
The relevant checkuser is ]. He's referring to Jehochman and ''Checkuser clerks'' archiving color commentary on the RFCU. . <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
: As the checkuser who ran the aforementioned case, I have no issues with anyone who wishes to relist the case for another checkuser to provide an independent second-opinion. However, I'd like to state that there are no other users on the address shared by Shibumi2, Harry Lives!, and PennState21 and, contrary to what ] asserts, it's not a shared IP that "hundreds or thousands of people browsed through"; there have only ever been the above three users on it. Furthermore, there are many other points of contact which I don't want to go into, for reasons of privacy. For that reason, I welcome any other checkuser to re-examine the case - ] <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::All complaints about alleged checkuser abuse should go to the ]. The community cannot evaluate and/or act on such complaints due to a lack of information and a lack of juristiction on the issue, and such public allegations only create unnecessary drama. ''']''' 11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
===Battleground===
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
] has become a battleground with partisans on both sides talking past each other. The discussion is not moving toward ]. No, it is diverging. What are we going to do about this? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 2 January 2008 (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)
Ask either the ] or ] (or both) to go take a look? --] (]) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:He did, but the last I checked there was no action on that request. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
Admins will still want to keep an eye on this, given the elections. This page is no less out of control. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
== "In popular culture" sections ==
{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:


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


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


3.
Thanks, --<font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.
:I've saved you the trouble and removed the section from the Subaru article. It was just a list of "I spotted a Subaru Leone in film/TV show x". None of the references would have been commented on by reliable sources, I'm sure == garbage. You have to use your own discretion and judgement in these things and ], it's not an admin issue. --] (]) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


4.
::I suppose the isn't a reliable source, for the same reasons IMDB isn't... —] (]) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.


5.
: The general rule is that the listing in a "In popular culture" ought to be important to the medium (i.e., book, movie, television episode) that it appears in. For example, the fact that the chase scene in '']'' involves a Mustang is important. (One could write a fairly extensive term paper about that choice of car.) And in this case, I can't think of a book, movie, etc. where a Subaru Leone makes a significant appearance. (To be honest, I can't think of any one of those where that model of car appears, ''period''.) -- ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.


] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
::I've seen '']'' during 2007, and I know what a Mustang of the '']'' era looks like. But I don't remember the car as being a Mustang or anything else. I've just skimread the article and I still don't see the significance of the particular brand of car to the movie. (Of course the movie has significance for the car and its maker: advertising.)


6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
::Those thinking of removing more "in popular culture" crapola are invited to look at articles on the more tony wristwatch makers (], etc.), where the editors often seem have more (entirely uncritical) stuff say about who shills for the baubles than about the baubles themselves. -- ] (]) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


=== Context ===
::: Steve McQueen is driving a ] ], which looks notably different than the typical Mark I Mustang; have a look at the articles. The car his adversaries are driving is a Dodge Charger -- although it looked a heckuva lot like a Camaro to me when I watched the movie. Regardless, part of what is happening in the chase scene is a competition between a couple of ]s. There is a historic rivalry between the differnet brands of pony cars -- almost as vicious as between Porsche & Ferrari, which is what happens in another one of McQueen's memorable works, '']''. (I guess Carol Shelby wasn't in the mood to provide any Cobras or Ford GT-150s for that second movie.) My point in citing this example is that knowing about this bit of information ''enriches'' the experience of watching ''Bullitt'', & mentioning it in a college paper would likely impress a professor by demonstrating a grasp of detail. (However, now that this point appears in Misplaced Pages, any student should be aware that any competent professor will know of this trick, so one will need look elsewhere for an easy solution.) -- ] (]) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.


I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
:Movies are composed of visual detail, and this sort of material is sourceable. The cars in a car chase are significant in a movie and are not a matter of random choice. Both people interested in the cars, and in the movies, know and comment on such detail. That a particular person doesn't think something important is irrelevant. I, like Hoary, pay very little attention to this particular detail, or to the specific differences between such cars in general, but that does not mean that the information is insignificant. The general rule is that the appearance of a otherwise notable setting or theme in a notable work is relevant content.''']''' (]) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.


] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
:My view of "in popular culture" sections (and articles) is that they help demonstrate "where would people have heard about this thing?" In that respect, they help to establish the notability and overall importance of the subject. However, it's often not black-and-white as to whether a given reference to a subject is incidental or substantial, which leaves editors drifting toward one of the two extremes: include everything or delete everything.--] (]) 05:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
===Consensus on pop culture bits===
::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
After all the hullabaloo earlier I thought it boiled down to to limit pop culture references to notable ones, namely ones which had been referenced elsewhere in an independent source. eg a book talking about rabbits in movies etc. or book on symbolism etc. cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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


== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
Hi, I blocked the bot since I felt it's been running too fast again. It's tagged thousands of images with invalid fair use rationale today, and no real person could keep up with that pace in actually looking at the cases and writing the rationales. If the actual goal is just to delete all of the images without examining them, please let me know or unblock it yourself. - ] 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.


However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
:It is not my fault that the bot is going as fast as it is. I was asked to skip older images, Images uploaded prior to jan 1, 2007. that restriction ended jan 1, 2008. we have about 90 days to be compliant with the foundation resolution's. I was asked to wait in tagging images so people could write rationales for them. people did not. ] 15:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::To be fair, 500 edits in six minutes is too many, even for a bot. Have you asked ] to slow it down? He most probably would have done upon request. ] 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
I have unblocked the bot, as there is no speed restriction any more on bots. It can be reblocked if you can prove it ignores maxlag though. <sub>→]]</sub> 15:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:Fair enough in a technical sense, but the concern that the bot is going faster than humans can clean up after it is a fair one is it not? One guy whose talk page I have listed has received over 50 of these notifications... Perhaps beta could be asked to slow down a touch? That is, again, presuming the motive is to get these cleaned up rather than deleted. --] (]) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:"no real person could keep up with that pace in actually looking at the cases and writing the rationales" -- which is why BCB puts messages on the image page, the talk page of the uploader, and the talk page of the article(s) it is used in. Given that March is coming up pretty fast to meet the requirement for post-Jan 1, 2007 images (although I do believe BCB is looking at all im:ages now).
:My suggestion is that we need to put all BCB-tagged images that fail 10c into a category subcat'd by day (as to be usable in AWB), and then quickly get some wiki task force together to look through articles on their 5th or 6th day, and if it's simply a 10c article name addition, they should be fixed (probably all of 10 seconds of work per image). If its something more than just the name (such as complete lack of rationale) then let them fail. Waiting to the 5/6th day allows the people notified by BCB to correct it themselves.
:But no, at this point, unless the bot is failing (which it isn't), it needs to keep running. --] 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Too bad the Foundation doesn't wish to concern itself with something important, such as the quality of articles or a noticeable decline in morale. If we fail to meet this deadline what happens? The wiki gets shut down? I think not. --] (]) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Non-free media on wikipedia is potentially an area that the Foundation can be sued on for copyright infringement; this is not true of article quality or issues with editors morales. The date is arbitrary beyond being a year past their decision on this issue. --] 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


: This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have bent over backwards trying to get as many images as I can saved. But I made an agreement in august, that agreement limited what I could tag, (only images uploaded after jan 1, 2007) the agreement was as of jan 1, 2008 the bot would then start tagging older images. as for a backlog they happen and they work them selfs out over time. (either saved or deleted). ] 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ]&thinsp;] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::The problem is, with an edit rate like this, it makes it very difficult for a human editor to check over the bots edits to look for, and spot mistakes - there's simply too many to go through. We could quite easily lose legitimate pictures because the bots has wrongly tagged images. Not questioning your image work, I think it's great - but I really do suggest you de-throttle it a little. ] 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I seem to remember, and could be wrong, but I think there are like 100,000 non-compliant images. Given BcB must edit the image page, the user talk page, and the article talk page, that 300,000 edits. 90 days = 129,600 minutes. Surely we could throttle it back to even 10 edits a minute (thats a BAG thing though) and finish in 3 weeks by my math. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Emoji redirect ==
What resolution is this? What happens in 90 days? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:(ec) See ] and , as of March 23 of this year, any image that is uploaded without a license '''or''' a fair-use rationale ("exemption doctrine policy") will be ''immediately'' deleted. --] 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Topic ban appeal ==
:Is there some way to create a special BcB tag that changes the days its listed from 7 to say 45? As long as the image tag indicates a deletionready date before March, we should be in the clear. Really this is a unique situation (we won't face a deadline again) so I think the period could be adjusted for these tags. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. How many images are we actually talking? Why not just have a bot make a big list, or a category listing all of them, that people can see and then attack to create fair use rationales in case they are needed? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::We're talking about 60000 to 65000 images. So maybe let's avoid the one big list? :-p '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually, it's more like 68000-70000 images. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's a big Twinkie. But still, if it were listed as a project for everyone to get behind, I bet with all the editors here it could get knocked down 1000~ a day, easy. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Im sorry Lawrence but I have tried several time to do exactly that, people just dont follow through. ] 17:00, 2 January 2008 (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)
::::There is at least one category I know of that lists some of them ], here's another one ], and also probably ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::The template BCB adds, {{tl|Di-disputed fair use rationale}} categorizes images as well, grouped by date. Again, however, this doesn't easily tell what images are quickly fixable due to missing the article name (75% or more of BCB's tags?) and what complete lack rationale.
:::::'''Proposal''' : We add in a new parameter to {{tl|Di-disputed fair use rationale}}, "10c=", with yes/no as the parameter. This (if yes) then adds the image to another category "Fair use rationales failing 10c on (date)". BetaCommand makes sure this parameter is included on tagged images (I will assume a trivial addition to his code). This way, we now have a list of images that maybe a handful of people each day can clear out any 10c images that fail due to lack of article name that require no significant amount of thought, and save that 75% or more of images that are tagged this way. --] 16:57, 2 January 2008 (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)
::Considering every time some admin takes it upon themselves to block BCbot it gets reversed, perhaps future blocks can be proceeded by a consensus to do so. ] 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If on BcB's user page, there was a "News" section that was updated when there was a major code change or the implmentation of something (like this editing speed change), that would probably help. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 2 January 2008 (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)
::::there was no speed change, I still use maxlag=5. the only thing that changed was that I am now tagging older images. Also list have been tried and fail. ] 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Apologies, I don't even know what maxlag is or how to check it, the discussion context seemed to be speed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 2 January 2008 (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)
::::::Bots are no longer throttled by edits per minute, they're controlled by a new feature called maxlag. Basically, when Misplaced Pages is slow, the bot will edit at a snail's pace, and when it is fast the bot will fly. ]
:* 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)
*''"My suggestion is that we need to put all BCB-tagged images that fail 10c into a category subcat'd by day (as to be usable in AWB), and then quickly get some wiki task force together to look through articles on their 5th or 6th day, and if it's simply a 10c article name addition, they should be fixed (probably all of 10 seconds of work per image)."'' - I agree, and I've been saying this for ages. Can we actually try and get something like this done? I will make a personal pledge to rescue 5 ''good'' non-free images each day (ie. ones that I think we need to keep - ones we don't need, I'll ignore). If 100 people do that over 90 days, that's 45,000 images of the 65,000. That's even presuming we need to keep that many. But please, read ] and only rescue the good non-free pics. ] (]) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (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)
::I assume the best list is ]? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:17, 2 January 2008 (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.
:::Technically yes, but ] is where I was thinking to start from. Mind you, this is ''all'' disputed images, not just those that fail 10c, which is why I suggest one more sub-category to help there. --] 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] is a good place to start. You can ] between images without sources, images without rationales, images with disputed rationales, and so on. Just ignore the bits saying there are no backlogs. The main categories are normally clear, but the subcategories will generally be full. I just moved 10 images from "disputed" (as they were high res) to "reduce" (which was the right place for them) by replacing the tag with {{tl|non-free reduce}}. Those were music album covers, though, which I don't particularly like, so I'll go looking for historical ones now. Those are mostly in "no sources" which gets tricky. ] (]) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
Betacommand, people been adding rationales to images, but it is a tedious task that takes a lot of time. Please pause the bot's tagging with {{tl|di-disputed fair use rationale}} until the images that have been have tagged over the past couple of days have been fixed/deleted. ] currently contains ~1,440 images for yesterday and more than 4,800 today. That amount will take ages to fix. If the images that lack a rationale are deleted, they will have to be reuploaded/undeleted. In the long run, which is going to take up more of editors' time -- adding a rationale; or deleting, reuploading, and putting back into mainspace? Once this batch has been dealt with, then you can get the bot to do another round of tagging. Otherwise huge amounts of images that can be fixed might be deleted. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:I've had my issues with how BC handles these things in the past, but in this case, I think continuing to tag the images is appropriate. Rather than forcing BC to stop now to simply delay the increasing backlog, perhaps we might consider extending the grace period before deletion? As it is, I can see a ton of warnings for older hockey logos on my watchlist, and there are a few of us at ] attempting to bring these images into compliance with the new rules. Time to fix is important, but there really is no sense in stopping the tagging. ]] 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) If we don't get this taken care of because people keep interrupting the bot, then on March 23 lots of images that can be fixed might also be deleted. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Especially given the volume of new tags, I'd agree that increasing the grace period is appropriate. 45 days is probably too much, but 7 is too few - maybe 21 days as a happy medium? If the images can be tagged by date, we can tackle the oldest first and move forward. If there's a team being put together, count me in - but, until just now, I had no idea that there was a deadline coming up. We can surely get a task force together to deal with this, can't we? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:06, 2 January 2008 (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)
::::Extending the grace period is a good idea. Could somebody with a bot make a list of disputed images by category (album covers, book covers etc) so that interested Wikiprojects could help with adding rationales? <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 19:11, 2 January 2008 (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)
*When the deadline comes, people will stop asking for BetacommandBot to be slowed down or blocked, and instead start demanding the Foundation's resolution be suspended. The reality is that this hard policy is being applied and people don't like it. BetacommandBot is but a symptom, and doing a bang up job of implementing the much-hated resolution. The 'disease' is the resolution, not the bot. The deadline is looming. Slowing down progress on these images, whether through deletion or fixing them, means we fail to meet the deadline. When the deadline is not met, images will be deleted wholesale without notification. Take your pick; either you lose now or you lose later. There's really not much hope, unless you overturn the Foundation's resolution. Sorry. --] (]) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
I want to go on record as saying that I am very annoyed at the amount of hate Betacommand receives over this issue. Copyrights are a serious issue, far more weighty than some nebulous ideal of "improving the encyclopedia". Now, is the bot going a little overboard? Sure, probably. That's automated tasking for you. Deadlines are arbitrary by nature, though, and I feel the project is risked more by letting images without fair-use rationale slide, on the off-chance that some copyright lawyer feels like earning his stripes on a randomly missed picture of Solid Snake killing stuff or an Ashanti photo or some other random thing that "interferes with the copyright holder's ability to profit". If you feel an image contributes to an article and it gets deleted, I say track down where it came from, figure out for yourself if it meets FUC criteria, and re-upload it properly tagged (I've done this before). Please don't whine about the bot. It is serving an important task for Misplaced Pages. Okay, that's all. ] (]) 19:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
* Threatening to delete images over 10c isn't a useful task for Misplaced Pages. Articles that the bot disputes over 10c tend to have a fair use rationale that makes perfect sense to humans. Tag the ones with no rationale at all, but meanwhile ]. The Foundation has asked that we enforce fair use guidelines; they haven't asked us to make every instance of fair use verifiable by one particular robot. ] / ] 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
**But they have passed a resolution insisting that each image have a rationale. Quoting the resolution, "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale". --] (]) 19:32, 2 January 2008 (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/>
** Once past March 23, 2008, images that lack a proper ESD/rationale must be immediately deleted per the Foundations' requirement - there is no grace period for such images. This isn't going to be done by a human - this will be a bot task. Thus, while it is completely fair to say that a human would be able to recognize the lack of a symbol to refer to an article name, a bot will not, and thus it is necessary to comply with what this bot will be looking for in the future. --] 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
***I'd like to see the Foundation resolution that says that we must delete all images whose applicable rationale is not understood by BetacommandBot, on March 28. I rather doubt it exists. ] / ] 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
****touché -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
*****I'd like to see ANY resolution that states anything about a bot before we conclude that the absence of a comment about a bot means this bot is doing illegitimate work. There are hundreds of thousands of images that have to be brought into compliance. Believe it or not, the bot's work has actually saved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of images from deletion by bringing their non-compliance to somebody's attention, and doing a bang up job of it I might add. --] (]) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
******Negative, quite the ''opposite'', it's too fast, too many images are being lost when what they need is minor modification. ] 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
<br/>
*******Then fix the images. Betacommand is been exceptionally responsive and patient in this process, lasting months and months and months. People have been complaining ad nauseum about all the images being marked, and the call for it to be slowed down or suspended have never ended. The task is huge. The complaints about the speed of the bot are, as I noted above, actually rooted in the resolution, not the bot. The hatred displayed for the bot is entirely misdirected. If you don't want the images deleted, take it up with the Foundation to have them craft a much more lenient resolution. --] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
********What does that make me, then, an angel? He has been exceptionally impatient and unresponsive, often simply resorting to insults, exhibiting very poor communications skills and an easily triggered foul temper. ] 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
***Except, as I've noted below, the resolution doesn't say that existing images are going to be immediately be deleted. It says the opposite, actually. -] <small>]</small> 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC) :Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{quote box|quote=Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified '''in a machine-readable format''' &hellip;|source=], ], ]|width=80%|align=center}} ] (]) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
****And if you read down more ''As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.''. We've already mentioned that for Misplaced Pages, discussion for *every* non-free image is nearly impossible beyond wide-spread notification that this will occure, and thus images without a machine-readable EDP will be deleted as instructed. --] 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
****Uncle G, I don't understand what point you are making here? Maybe if we do a full quote and emphasise the missing bit, things will be clearer? {{quote box|quote=Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format '''so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.'''|source=], ], ]|width=80%|align=center}}
:::*I take this to be referring to the image license tags that have "non-free" in their names. There was a large effort about a year or so ago to rename all existing non-free image license tags and make sure the templates started with the words "non-free". There was probably a mass TfD debate somewhere, or maybe the debate was somewhere else. Regardless, have a look and in ]. The point is that it is these image tags that allow machines to identify and filter out non-free content. This allows reusers to strip out non-free content. Most of them don't, but the machine-readable bit has already been satisfied as far as identifying non-free content goes. What hasn't been satisfied is the ability for machines to detect which non-free images have been certified as satisfying all 10 of the ] (which serves as en-Misplaced Pages's Exemption Doctrine Policy). The safe assumption, for now, is that all the content marked "non-free" should be stripped out by reusers. Certifying that all non-free images meet all 10 criteria will take a lot longer than 3 months, or even one year. Progress has been made on making several of these criteria machine-readable and human certifiable in machine-readable format, but more work is needed. ] (]) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
=== What the resolution actually says ===
{{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 ==
''5. For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken:''
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
''As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.''
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 ==
So the policy does not say "after March 23, use a bot to delete all images without a valid rationale". In fact, it explicitly says that existing images are supposed to go through a discussion process. It's debatable what the clause about new media means, but it's clear that BetacommandBot need not understand all fair use rationales. -] <small>]</small> 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*Non-sequitor since the bot can't delete images. --] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC) {{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
**Yeah, I noticed that. Reworded. -] <small>]</small> 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but could it be possible to create a bot that links images that fail 10-c to their respective article? If possible, it could save a lot of time. ] (]) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== "The Testifier" report ==
*If you cut and pasted that resolution, either the date is wrong or you've got the wrong one. Some people don't seem to understand why 10c is important - if it is, then tagging images without it for deletion is fine. If it isn't, then remove it from the policy. Rspeer - the policy doesn't say images have to be acceptable by BCB, but that is irrelevant - because BCB isn't tagging images that are compliant with the policy, and non-compliant images should be deleted. ]] 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
I just had a random thought. Since editors who uploaded may have left wikipedia, and therefore never see the notice, how standardized are the wiki-project boxes on article talkpages? Are they standardized enough for a bot to follow them through and post a 4th notice on the project's talkpage? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
:Based on what I've seen with hockey logos alone today, such a proposal would render any sports or media based project talk page unusable. Posting a notice on the talk page of the affected article should be fine, as members of the associated projects will have those watchlisted. ]] 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I see where the confusion is. In the same resolution, there is also this:<br><br>
''6. For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken:''
*''As of March 23, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted. ''
*''The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it. ''
*''By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted.''


That's fine, except we ''do'' currently have an EDP in place, so it doesn't apply. Unless there's another resolution that I'm not aware of, the Foundation has mandated absolutely nothing for us. -] <small>]</small> 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC) :I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:What exactly is this EDP and where is it? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Per the definition , the EDP is a fair-use policy. Ours is cited as an example, so it's clear that it must be sufficient. -] <small>]</small> 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
:::To clarify, its an exception policy to allow non-free content that Wikimedia projects must have in order to host non-free content. Fair use is (mostly in this context) an American concept that is not widely shared, and so other projects have other types of exceptions. ]] 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*Amarkov, determining whether or not media has a valid fair use rationale is trivial, and doesn't require discussion. What a potentially deleting admin does at that point is variable. But, having literally tens of thousands (perhaps even more than a hundred thousand) "discussions" about each image subject to deletion under the resolution is impossible. The reality is that ''all'' images, regardless of when they were uploaded, are likely to be subject to deletion after March 23 with the only oversight being an admin checking the rationale (or lack thereof) of an image. So yes there is a mandate, and yes it will be applied. The culture here will change after March 23. You think it's bad now? Just wait. March 24 will be major fireworks day, and you won't be calling for Betacommand's head anymore, but the Foundation's. --] (]) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
**March 23, 2007 was nine months ago. The section that mentions 2008 does not apply to this Misplaced Pages. Therefore, there is no mandate to do anything on March 23, 2008. It's not really unclear. -] <small>]</small> 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
***It's long been held that the resolution was not descriptive enough in its content, in that the Foundation means that all projects, regardless of whether they had an EDP as of March 23, 2007, needed to come into compliance by March 23, 2008. I know this isn't reflected in the resolution, but it is the commonly held belief. --] (]) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
****But that's wrong. The requirement is in a list of actions which are to be taken for projects which did not have an EDP. There is no way to construe it such that it also applies to projects which had an EDP. It may have been what the Foundation meant to say, but unless they actually say it, we are not obligated to obey. -] <small>]</small> 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*****If the Board has later clarified the meaning of this resolution, they don't have to update the resolution itself in order to have it be binding. This isn't a government where Board actions have to be duly registered and considered and noticed and commented upon etc. before taking effect. ]] 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
******No, but the Board itself does have to clarify the meaning. Do you have a link to them doing so? -] <small>]</small> 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*******Amarkov, if you want to believe the resolution has no application to en.wikipedia, that's you're business. Attempting to interpret the resolution into non-existence in so far as this language wikipedia is concerned will not be an effective means of addressing the concerns raised. The images will be deleted if they do not fit policy. Else, we might as well vacate all our policies. Either we have an EDP or we don't. --] (]) 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
********Amarkov is correct. The WMF Board's licensing policy is severely deficient in the precision of its wording. I raised this on a talk page somewhere over there, and several times here, but the message never quite got through. I think I even raised in on the talk page of a Board Member. What the policy ''should'' have is a 7th general point giving an overall deadline for projects both with and without an EDP. But what it has is a 6c subclause (the third bullet point for number 6) for projects without an EDP. Anyway, the problem we have is the following: ''"By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted."'' - '''the way the EDP is worded on en-Misplaced Pages, we cannot tell which of our images are compliant or not'''. In fact, the compliance varies according to the use of the image. ie. take an image and overuse it in lots of articles and suddenly the image becomes non-compliant and eligible for deletion (in reality, the solution is to take the image out of the articles it shouldn't be in). In practice, the machine-readable parts of the EDP are the license tag (we are fairly good on that now, as all the non-free tags have "non-free" in their titles, and image without license tags are routinely deleted), the source (we need to develop more widespread and rigorous use of a source template , like {{tl|information}}, which is now being used on Commons and here), and we are gradually moving towards having a majority (though not all) of non-free images using some form of "rationale" template . Criteria 7 (use in an article - ie. no orphaned non-free images), and 9 (inappropriate locations such as the wrong namespace) can largely be assessed by bots. A criteria that needs a combination of humans and bots assessing whether humnans are correctly filling in a template is criteria 4 (previous publication) - we need to develop a template field that allows people to specify where a non-free image was previously published, and get a bot to demand compliance there. Critera 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 (replaceable, commercial opportunities, minimal use, encyclopedic nature, image policy and significance) all need human input to decide whether an image is compliant. There. That gives an idea of how far we have come and how far we still have to go. My view is that we aren't even at a stage where we can reliably say whether ''any'' images are 100% compliant, but we ''are'' making progress. ] (]) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
**I have no issue with deleting images which violate NFCC (although I think some of NFCC itself should be changed). My problem is with BetacommandBot, which is not always accurate in determining if images violate policy. People are defending it by saying "we have to have all bad images deleted by March 23, the Foundation says!", and this is not actually the case. -] <small>]</small> 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
***You're welcome to believe that if you like. But, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the application of the Resolution is actually doing you a favor. If we ignored it, and revert to base policy, then ALL images are subject RIGHT NOW. Would you rather have that? Also note that the bot tags images for deletion for 7 days, not 48 as policy dictates. Would you rather have it be 48 hours? The bot's doing you a favor. --] (]) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
****Why in the world would I be thankful that the bot isn't quite as bad as it could be, when I don't want it to exist at ''all''? -] <small>]</small> 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*****I think you meant to say you don't think the policy should exist at all :) What the bot is doing is extremely lenient. To be any more lenient would be to ignore the policy. --] (]) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
******I do not mind the policy. I do, however, mind a bot enforcing the policy. I mind this for the same reason I would mind a bot enforcing the trolling policy, or neutrality policy, or anything else a bot cannot adequately evaluate. Stop equating criticism of BetacommandBot with criticism of the policy. -] <small>]</small> 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*******I'm not sure I understand your complaint then. Is the issue the rate and only the rate at which the bot is tagging? If so, you do understand that there's been literally hundreds of thousands of images to be tagged? How do you suggest humans do that? Please remember we are a volunteer service. --] (]) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
**The problem is that a bot can not determine accurately if a valid fair use rationale is provided. -] <small>]</small> 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
***For what it is checking for, it does a wonderful job of doing so. Can you cite specific cases where it failed to properly identify (and thus improperly tagged) an image that had an adequate fair use rationale? --] (]) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going back through the archives , and just some points:
* The EDP/Fair use rationale has to be understood by a bot, or more specifically ''Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.''
* Note that the resolution cites WP's fair use policy ] (which looked like as of March 23, 2007) as an acceptable form for an EDP. While there has been a lot of other changes, is primarily the same as what we currently have. This effectively "blesses" WP's non-free policy to align with what the Foundation requires being an appropriate example of one. --] 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
* So perhaps there's a vague mandate to delete images or make their rationale machine-readable. That's two options, and the second sounds much more constructive. How about running a bot that finds the rationales that are slightly off from being simply machine-readable (for example, they point to a disambiguation page), and ''fixes'' them, instead of running the deletion-bot (yes, I know, it's really an ask-admins-to-delete-bot) first? How about prioritizing deletion of images with ''no'' rationale, instead of deleting all the ones that are damn close except someone forgot a parenthesis? ] / ] 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:*There's one inherent problem in that a number of people are of the opinion that the rationales can all be written by a bot, and they can't. Too many people think that a rationale is a rationale if, basically, it says the use is fair use because, well, it is! This has been argued forever and ever and over and over again. There are some subclasses of rationales that might work with bots, but the vast majority do not. That a rationale states which article it is used in is far from enough. A bot can do that trivially, but a bot can't discern why a usage is valid under fair use law. Only a human can do that. --] (]) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::So what you're saying is there are probably a lot of images that have superficially sufficient rationales, but should really be reviewed and tagged/deleted anyway? And these images are missed by the bot and require individual attention? Is that issue being addressed as well in advance of the deadline? ]] 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::*Not directly. It's a related issue. There's a zillion images with superficially sufficient rationales. That problem is just about impossible to resolve. But, tagging images *clearly* missing on other components does have the benefit of (a) the people notified perhaps crafting a better rationale and (b) the potential deleter realizing it's insufficient and doing something about it. The flimsy rationales is a nightmare situation. --] (]) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::* Superficially sufficient rationales sound like the opposite of what I'm talking about. A rationale would be superficially sufficient if a bot wouldn't see anything wrong with it but a human could tell it was misapplied. I'm talking about the cases where the rationale is completely clear to a human, but it's not formatted in the way that BetaCommandBot wants, so BCB declares the rationale insufficient and rewards Misplaced Pages's contributors with red tape. ] / ] 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*Red tape that must be followed. --] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
===Why speed?===


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Many if not most of the images I'm getting notices about simply need a switch from fair use, which at the time of upload years ago did not demand a detailed rational, to PD-Israel, which at the time didn't exist. I'm active enough, so I'm catching em, but I would estimate many people will not and thus we will lose (are losing) valuable encyclopedic content. Which is why I again ask, what is the rational (and I mean non-procedural, external logic) in waiting till a certain date and flooding it instead of trickling it gradually? ] 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
:I think what folks have said is that this is trickling it gradually. If there are 70,000 images left non-compliant, then even a gradual trickle is a number of images per day (maybe not 500 edits in 6 minutes, but the bot doesn't run all the time does it?). The concerns about previously compliant images being deleted has been raised before, but I think our increasing compliance with copyright law doesn't allow for grandfathering images we thought were sufficiently noted before. ]] 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:] ]
::From what I've seen, people are saying this is the slowest trickle we can get ''if'' we want it finished by March 23. But since we're perfectly willing to remove any fair use violations we see, why must it be done in three months? -] <small>]</small> 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
::Waiting until a specific date and then flooding, and calling that flood a trickle, I'm not sure how to respond to that, actually. There a difference between compliance and paranoia. Who gets the authority to ''interpret'' Foundation rules? ] 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
:::] now contains more than 10,400 images. This is a flood. It took me 34 minutes to add rationales to 19 book covers (and these were easy ones to fix). In contrast, BetacommandBot tagged 20 images in two minutes (21.30 and 21.31 UTC). I can't see all these images being fixed within a week. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
:::*Why the concern? If the images are truly important to the project, and they are deleted, they will either be requested for undeletion by concerned parties or uploaded by same, with rationales and licensing that complies with our license. The idea that the project is permanently damaged by having a potentially legitimate image deleted is false. --] (]) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
]
::::*Things don't work that way and "truly" important images remain deleted for years & years, even ones about visual artistic works that had a typo in the rational. I'm speaking from experience of <small>(])</small> approaching 33,333 articles on my watchlist. ] 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Uh, ] or ]? (kidding!) ]] 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Unfortunately, there isn't much choice. The alternatives are to let tens of thousands of images exist on the project in violation of policy, or delete them. From reading much of the above, there's a number of people who would be just as happy to ignore policy, and let the images remain. We have to draw the line somewhere. --] (]) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::*This account is actually shared (shared with one ]). ] 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::*We want a slower, time-dependent line. ] 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*The bot was throttled a long time ago per discussion. The result was abysmal. --] (]) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::*Oh? ] 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::* Have I missed something? Can images be undeleted now? AFAIK, when an image is deleted, it's gone, and only someone with the file stored locally can put it back. ] / ] 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Um... yes, images can indeed be undeleted now. Was this not publicised, or something? -] <small>]</small> 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::*Yes, and for a long time. If the image was after before a certain date, it can be restored (bottom-most link in the undelete page). ] 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
(Reply to Hammersoft's question above) I think it is important to respect editor's image uploads as we would their mainspace contributions. I prefer fixing images and helping editors to do the same, rather than deleting. Like I said above, in the long run it will take longer to reupload and fix. It is extremely unfair to delete fixable legacy images uploaded by retired editors because they were uploaded before the rules were strictly enforced. I see images uploaded by administrators and other very experienced editors have been tagged by the bot, which suggests that the importance of ] has not been impressed on a large section of editors. Why not highlight the importance and try to educate editors (eg write an article for the ''Signpost'' and tell them that the deadline is close) before a bot adds 20 templates to their talk page and annoys the hell out of them? (By the way, I personally have not received any of these templates.) Some of these images are not easily replaceable, such as scans made by uploaders and historical images. It is easy for an admin to look at a deleted image to see if could be undeleted and fixed, but the rest of us don't know if the deleted image is crappy or fails other parts of the ], so an undeletion request wastes everyone's time. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
*With respect, the issue of fairness is not of concern. Certainly we do not want to go out of our way to offend people, but the interests of the project outweigh the needs of any one user or group of users. The images must come into compliance. We can not have images rotting because it would be unfair to delete them because the uploaders have retired. That's unworkable. I could just as well create an account, upload a bunch of images and then 'retire' the account, in which case gosh it would be a travesty to delete those images because the uploader retired :) You can see how this can easily be gamed. Believe me, huge efforts have been made to educate users. The reality is that most are not interested in getting the images into compliance. Of those that are, only a handful are doing so by way of self motivation. Most that are fixing them are doing so under threat of deletion. There's a huge number of users who think this policy is absolutely terrible, and would rather it go away. Getting it implemented is a <insert thousands of expletives> nightmare. But, it has to be done. --] (]) 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
|]

|]
::*I am not saying that these images should not be fixed, and I have personally added rationales to more than 1,000 images. Other editors are doing the same, but it probably is going unnoticed (and we cannot work as fast as a bot). I am saying that deleting should be the last resort, after a concerted effort to fix as many as possible. I have not seen huge efforts to educate editors apart from deletion templates on user talk pages, and I find it hard to believe that administrators whose uploads do not comply do not have the best interests of the project at heart. Images uploaded by temporary not-serious editors frequently fail other parts of the ] and should be deleted anyway (eg I see a lot of manga images that rightly get deleted). I absolutely agree that the policy is important, but I think this mass-tagging is not going to help impress this fact on editors. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
|]
:::*What do you suggest then? Doing it without a bot resulted in hundreds of thousands of non-compliant images. Doing it with a bot throttled resulted in services being overwhelmed and dismal response. We've tried it other ways. Do you have another way to handle this that we're not aware of? --] (]) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
|]
::::* Well, since (as reported by someone else) 75% of the reports are about this 10c issue, where few people agree with the way you're implementing the machine-readability requirement, you could wait for a consensus about what is sufficient for requirement 10c while doing the rest of the tagging. Then you get to slow down by a factor of 4, which is at least something. I also don't see what the disastrous consequences would be of slowing down more. ] / ] 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
|]
:::::*Slowing down effectively suspends the policy since the rate of uploads will exceed tagging. Either this is policy or it isn't. Being slow or not is irrelevant. There are literally thousands of editors who are being notified. The bot's really creating very little work, per user, on average. --] (]) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
}}
::::::*I don't think that many editors have problems with a bot tagging new uploads, it is the speed and quantity of tagging legacy images that is the problem. Do we know how many retired editors' images have been tagged? If it is a lot, then there will be a lot of work per active editor. Lots of editors have come up with good ideas about fixing these images in the past few hours. A bot to fix image backlinks is an excellent idea. Automated tools could be created and used to help add the rationales ''with editor supervision'' (copy and pasting takes up huge amounts of time). ] started adding rationales to logos just before Christmas, and while there were problems with the implementation (no editor supervision), I think it was a good beginning. Creating lists of images without rationales divided by image type would be a good way of quantifying the amount of non-compliant images without tagging for deletion. That might make editors more urgent about fixing the problem. The relevant Wikiprojects are interested in fixing these images, for example Wikiproject Novels set up a sub-page where disputed image tags could be placed, but despite two requests Betacommand did not put image notifications there. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:] ]
:::::::*I think Polbot is a terrible beginning personally. Lists of non-compliancy have been tried before, with dismal results. People don't get energized about this stuff until there's a threat of deletion. Then the feathers fly into the air, there's trillions of electrons of debate, and....the images get fixed (or deleted). Seems to work fine. --] (]) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::*But wouldn't be OK if every rationale the bot added was approved by an editor? When were the lists tried? I've used automated lists of disputed images and found them extremely helpful. I don't think threat of deletion helps to educate editors, it just annoys them because they see it as a unnecessary, bureaucratic policy. (I don't think this, BTW :p) Sorry I won't be able to continue this discussion, it's past midnight where I am. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Avruch/collapse-bottom}}

===Who actually pulls the trigger?===
At this apparent date, who actually pulls the trigger and deletes 60,000~ images that may not have fair use rationales? Is this the Foundation? Or are they fair game at that point? Amarkov above says that this doesn't apply to us. I'm just wanting to understand if this means come March something, we will just automatically ''lose'' all this potentially valid content because no one has had time to get to it yet? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:Well, right now it's the 'bot. Since it's unreasonable to expect that every image in the system is being watched, a very large percentage of the images are deleted as a result of tagging. Indeed, it seems likely to me that most of the images that are candidates for deletion aren't watched, either because they were created by people who are no longer active, or because the need to watch one's uploads wasn't impressed upon them. ] (]) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::The bot isn't deleting anything. Responsibility for deletion rests on the person who deletes the image. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::That's technically true, but in practice it appears that those doing the deleting are not (for instance) checking to see how the images are used. Those admins are apparently just doing the 'bot's bidding, so effectively it is deleting any image that isn't being watched. ] (]) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*And every time the bot tags an image, it makes multiple notifications regarding the tagging. See . The images do not have to be "watched". They are reported to the respective parties, so much so in fact that some parties complain about the notifications. No pleasing everyone. --] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::::*The thing is that the places that the notifications are made '''DO''' need to be watched, and often they are not. I personally don't watch the images I upload (though given the current fuss I never upload anything that's not either a personal creation or a US government image), and in any case I imagine the only people watching images much are their uploaders, who are getting a message on their talk pages. Except that I'd bet that a lot of people who uploaded something two years ago aren't active now. The upshot is that it wouldn't surprise me that maybe a majority of the notifications for old images never reach anyone. ] (]) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::*In addition, the WikiProject notification system never got going, despite several showing interest. ] (]) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:::*If any admin is deleting images willy nilly without checking whether deletion is warranted, they should be contacted informally and the matter should be discussed with them. Careless use of admin tools is a serious matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*What tends to happen when someone raises this sort of thing informally is "well, it would have been deleted under another NFCC anyway". But this is misleading because the deletion log is normally for a big batch, and so refers to 10c even if the reason is really another reason. Extremely sloppy, but this is what happens when automated tools like TWINKLE are used. ] (]) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm confused about is what happens to all the non-free images that have manually written rationales. You know. The ones that are perfectly valid, but that a bot can't detect. Not all images use rationale templates you know. Do all those get deleted by bot when this date arrives? I suspect that all that will happen is that tagging will carry on as before, with bots being used to help convert older style rationales to machine-readable format (ie. using templates or a standard format), and humans being needed to filter the resulting large batches of images. It is important to realise that this will '''not''' mean all images will be magically compliant with ]. The most important criteria (3 and 8) are not machine-readable. Humans are needed to assess '''all''' images, even those passed by a bot. That will take literally decades to do properly. ] (]) 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Carcharoth, BCBot does not look for a rationale template. I have seen people who improperly fill out the new rationales get tagged and Ive seen older images with rock solid rationales. All BCBot checks for is one very basic part of the rationale, the name of the page where the rationale is for. ] 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, yes. That's how it works now. How will it work after 28 March? How will all the non-compliant images be detected? The only way I can this happening is for all images lacking a non free rationale template to be tagged and then either deleted (which will kick up the biggest storm you've ever seen), or checked by humans. Of the quoted figure of around 100,000 non-compliant images, what is the other side of the coin? How many are compliant (ie. have links to articles they are used in?). Say that figure is 20,000 or something, How many of that 20,000 have rationales? Betacommandbot can't detect that, I don't think. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the article link clause of 10c is a valid way to make it possible to detect non-compliant images using a bot. What hasn't yet been done is to separate out those images that meet the following criteria: (1) they use a non free rationale template of some sort; and (2) lack an article link. This is ''an easily fixable <u>subset</u> of the 10c taggings''. By all means delete (or tag for deletion) the images that don't have a non free rationale template - let admins check those to see if a manual rationale has been provided. But don't mix those up with images where people have taken the time and effort to add a non free rationale template and missed out something - it is the wiki-way to ''fix'' those sort of images, not delete them. And separating them out makes everyone's work more efficient. ] (]) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
: This is not an admin bot. It tags things, but then a human admin has to decide whether to save as is, fix the rationale, or delete. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, there are bots doing deletions. You are right, though, in theory, all images are supposed to be checked by humans. ] (]) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*Carcharoth; I concur, especially with the "decades to do properly". In reality, it's something that never can be achieved. We will always have non-compliant fair use media, and always have people complaining about it being deleted, and always have people that fail to understand our policies despite massive writings to educate people. I've thought before it might be a good idea to reduce image uploads only to those with experience on Misplaced Pages. It'd make it possible to manage the environment. Right now, it's wholly unmanageable, and attempts to make it so result in sections like this entire section. --] (]) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::This is the key point: it can never be achieved. It's very similar to other unachievable goals like removing all false information about living people, making all articles well-referenced, or cleaning up all articles with cleanup tags. These goals can't be 100% achieved, but they can be worked toward at a reasonable pace, proportional to how much of a problem they actually are. Sometimes, that pace is disappointing to people who care about the issue (cleanup is a good example of this).
::So, given that, there's no reason to run this bot at such a furious pace. Meeting a self-imposed goal of 100% machine-readable fair-use rationales by March 28, for example, isn't a good reason, especially if it results in images being tagged for deletion many times faster than humans can deal with it. The Wiki spirit is to fix what you can, when you can. ] / ] 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::*Your given is not a given. Have a look at the upload logs. Roughly 1500 unfree images are uploaded per day. Most do not comply with our policies. Just to keep up with the influx requires heavy activity by the bot, much less trying to get the project compliant. --] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*I agree. I would support a throttling of the incoming images, if only to allow volunteeer effort to be diverted to fixing older images. ] (]) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*But how do we do that? Only allow X number of images to be uploaded per day/hour? 1500 non-free images per day on what is supposed to be a 💕 is a problem. Perhaps we should do what, if I recall correctly, was done on another project: further restrict future fair use, perhaps limit it to logos and important historical photos. Any other fair use image would be grandfathered in, but we would no longer accept screenshots and cover scans. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::* My head just exploded thinking about the backlash from that (given what we've got to deal with now on fictional works and image aspects). Maybe limit to at most two non-free images uploads per day per user? (But then , how do you diff between uploading an image and then re-editing to add in a non-free license because you accidently forgot it, and doing the upload and license on the same step?) --] 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*'''Its been repeated over and over in this thread, but it bears repeating in bold: BCBot is ''not'' an adminbot.''' The bot does not do the deletions, it just tags 10c non-compliant images. Very simple. Why quibble over the identification of an image? If you have a problem with images being deleted, direct your attention to the part of the process where ''something actually gets deleted'' and maybe progress will be made. <sup>]]</sup> 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
**I did. I once tried to raise issues with an admin who had deleted both: (a) images that had been fixed (but the tag hadn't been removed); and (b) images that could have been easily fixed with the addition of a single link (the 10c, rationale present but link missing cases), and that admin got upset and insisted they were following policy. To the letter, sure, but not the spirit. I'm sure I could find examples in recent deletions as well. The theory that admins carefully check all images is nice, but in practice it doesn't work. Thus excessive tagging by Betacommandbot does overload admins doing the deletions. No question about that. ] (]) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Carcharoth, the script's been upgraded a bit so now there should be practically no errors. What you don't realise that this is a '''board resolution''', all this mess is like a campaign pushing for a seven-year old checkuser. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, I know this concerns a board resolution. Your point is? (Hint: the interaction between board and community is a tricky one, and needs careful management on both sides). My only point with regards to your deletions (and I wasn't going to name names until you turned up here) was to make absolutely sure that you were personally examining each image properly before you deleted them. The examples I found suggested to me that you weren't doing this. Will your script still make errors such as this? , , ? You and others have said you manually check all the images before such batch deletions. I presume for this image you checked it more than a week before you deleted it, or just missed the obvious rationale that had been added? I raised this elsewhere and notified you, and you didn't respond. Is this the sort of thing that your upgraded script will now not make mistakes over? ] (]) 03:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

=== A thought ===

Based on someone asking whether WikiProject talk pages could receive BCB notices (and someone else pointing out that this would result in said talk pages getting flooded), would anyone be able to write a script that takes two inputs - the location of a WikiProject's banner and a subpage of the WikiProject page - and runs through all articles with the banner attached, checking the images used (or commented out) for BCB notices, and then outputs a single page, at the location given, listing all images that need better FURs? The system would be opt-in, and probably operator-supervised, but if all the major WikiProjects requested such a list and then worked through it to fix the images it would clear a lot of the backlog (without spamming even more talk pages with big notification templates). ]<small>(])</small> 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:This was proposed before, back in August. As far as I know, several people set up subpages of WikiProjects (for example ]). I notified Betacommand, but nothing seemed to happen. I (and others) tend to notice most talk page notices anyway, so I don't care that much, but it's strange to see the wheel trying to be re-invented. Maybe Betacommand can tell us what happened here? ] (]) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::that is a bug ive been trying to work out, Im not sure why the bot is not leaving notes there. ] 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::How long will it take to fix this bug? 2 weeks? 2 months? ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

===Example of flood===
'''' <small></small> ] 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*So you'd prefer...what, people not be notified when their images are not compliant? No matter how this is handled, people complain. If the images are not tagged, we get overloaded with non-compliant images. If the images are tagged, but there's no notifications, people complain there's no notifications. If people are notified, people complain about the notifications. It doesn't end. --] (]) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:*I would prefer... a trickle over a flood. ] 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::*A trickle has no hope of keeping up with the pace of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*Why not condense them into a single template? Like: "The following images have no rationale: <nowiki>]<br/>]<br/>...</nowiki>" -- ] (]) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

===Let the Foundation fix it===

From discussion above I gather that:
*A:The Board needs to clarify the meaning of the relevant resolution.
*B:The WMF Board's licensing policy is severely deficient and needs to be fixed.

If A and B are correct, then it only serves to perpetuate a bad situation if the worker bees try to enact an incoherent resolution in order to maintain a broken policy. I could be way off on this, but is it an option to simply stop this process(block the Bot) until the Foundation does what they need to do? ] (]) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*This misses the point. This project is a free content encyclopedia. It's the core mission. The resolution was written as descendant of that mission. If you have doubts about the resolution, refer to the ]. --] (]) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

===Comments on proposals===
#'The Foundation needs to clarify if 03/23/08 is the date everything non-compliant goes away or just the date everything non-compliant has to start going away' - This might be nice to have settled to avoid further divergences, but frankly it's a red herring. It doesn't matter. Either way 'the end is nigh'. We have a few months to sort things out and should do so.
#'Notify more people' - Figuring out a way to get notices to related Wikiprojects, people who added the image to a page, et cetera might help to save some images where the uploader is not active and not many people are watching the page(s) the image appears on. However, I suspect this is probably going to be a relatively small portion of the images.
#'Slow down the bot to prevent floods' - Even if we do the math and work out that the bot can tag 250 (or whatever) old images per day to get through everything with a month to spare... when that 250 hits a patch of 60 images all uploaded by the same person with close proximity in name or uploaded date or whatever the bot uses to sequence its work then that person is going to get a 'flood'. Thus, I'd only suggest going that route if the bot's sequence of updates could be randomized.
#'Increase the time between the bot tagging and the image being reviewed / deleted' - Probably the best solution IMO. Get the full list out there ASAP, but give people increased time to resolve them in recognition of the fact that so many are being reported at once.
--] 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None of these proposals quite catches the spirit of the problem. The problem isn't the Foundation policy. The problem is that BetaCommandBot is tagging at a huge rate and, in my spot checks, ''it is almost always completely wrong''. That is to say, in my experience it is tagging images that ''do'' have a fair use rationale, but that rationale doesn't meet whatever retarded standard BetaCommandBot (''not'' the Foundation) requires. So it's not just making edits at a prodigious rate, but it's ''wasting everyone's time'' at a prodigious rate.

My $0.02 ] (]) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:Eh, if the Foundation says we must have the article name in the Summary, then we must. I particularly like Dunkerson's 2nd and 4th proposals. A central page, that would be overhwelmed instantly, that BCB would notify for each image (or a series of ], ] etc) would be better than using a category or log in my opinon. Also, we have ~90 days to work through this and should only need about 3 weeks depending on BCB's speed. There is no reason we couldn't extend the deletion time from 7 to 14 or 21 days and still finish with time to spare. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*RE: Speed. As I noted above, we're getting ~1500 fair use images per day, and most of those have errors of one kind or another. Call it 80%. That's 1200 per day. That's ''new'' images, much less the existing massive backlog. Even to keep up, the bot needs to tag about 50 images an hour. Since it's not running 24/7/365, tagging a few hundred per hour is hardly irrational or high speed just to keep up with the steady influx. Again, this doesn't address the existing massive backlog. It ''must'' proceed at "high" speed. Also, the amount of work generated per user on average is rather light...just a few images here and there for most affected users. There are exceptions of course, but in general it's only a few users. --] (]) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::It's probably not a problem with new images. It's definitely a problem with old images because of the likelihood that the uploader may not be around to be notified anymore. In terms of the railroads project we're all racing around looking for classes of articles being essentially vandalized. There are ''hundreds'' of American railroad articles, and then there are (it turns out) name trains and we're not sure what else. There's a good chance that a lot of stuff will be deleted simply because nobody knows to check. And there's certainly concern that the rules will change again and we'll be subjected to another run of this. ] (]) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I like CBD's 2nd and 4th proposals. Regarding new uploads, ] also patrols new images (and receives very few complaints), eg . One of the problems created by the yesterday's mass tagging is that easily-fixed images that were uploaded years ago are now mixed up with new images that should be deleted for failing other parts of the ]. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
** Are you claiming that a 20% error rate is a good thing for a bot to have, when it's going around posting notices on people's talk pages (which are incidentally totally baffling to inexperienced editors) and recommending for images to be deleted? With that many errors, you ''have'' to at least allow time for people to follow along and fix the mess. ] / ] 09:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

===Idea===
Why not just have the beta bot update a single page in addition to the user pages in question? It can be a date sorted page that automatically updates like AFD. Instant backlog for people to work through and clear, day by day. Since we apparently only have to do this once, for the next 3-4 months, it would be a short term project. We can then hightlight that page. Set up a script to just count off the daily totals on the front page like how AFD's backlog does. If we stick this in the watchlist for everyone since it seems like a pretty Big Deal we can probably knock down 1000 or more per day. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:I like this idea, it would give it a high enough profile that people might care and fix an image or two. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::With the caveat that not every image needs to be fixed. Some are clearly not needed and need to be deleted. ] (]) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Definitely. The point would be to get eyes on the problem and each image, and maybe have the watchlist link to that day's queue first, and the main page as well. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:I too like this idea. This would make it ''much'' easier in keeping track of images and would help us notice more images that have been incorrectly tagged. ''']]]''' 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

===Sandbox "article" pages===
I like to develop articles in my user area.

It also means that I can propose replacing the current "real" article on that article's discussion page and, before consensus is reached, folks have something concrete to look at and compare and contrast.

The image bots keep removing the relevant images in this case. eg:

There is, in Florida and US Federal statute and case law fair use exemption for "research". Would it be a good idea for the bot developers to make me an appropriate flag that I could place on my article development pages in user space? ]] 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:Use a colon ":" to link to the images until you are ready to move the article into mainspace. eg. ]. ] (]) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::Then you can't try to lay out the article with images in it. This does sound to me like BCB stepping on fair use by being so inflexible. ] / ] 09:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you, Carcharoth, for your helpful suggestion. One of the better bots does that already (rather than deleting the image syntax entirely) but, as Rspeer points out, it is then difficult for other users to assess the relevance of images or how appropriate their captions are. The plain fact is that my use of these images is entirely justified by the private research fair use provisions and case law and there should be an opt-out switch. ]] 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

===Project===
Should we start a project? I say a project that clearly states what users are supposed to do, and then invite our readers trough their watchlist to "Save 5 images a day by writing rationales" might be a good idea. Commons usually sees surprisingly much activity when people are asked trough the sitenotice to "categorize 5 images today" or "Add an <nowiki>{{Information}}</nowiki> template". Why should that not be able to work here? Show people a category, give them a fair use rationale template and 5 examples, and I think we will be amazed at what we can still accomplish in the coming 90 days. Saving images has been discussed for ages and projects have been attempted before, but now that there is a real need to stop acute deletion, perhaps people will be more sensitive. We can at least TRY ?!? --] (] • ]) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:Good idea. You may encounter resistance to using the sitenotice though. But I am going to start my personal 5/day pledge tomorrow, concentrating (as I've said elsewhere) on historical images. ] (]) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::Might I suggest ]? as a good starting place? WP:5AD would also work as a shortcut. I've already done my five for today, and may get another set in later today. The math makes this task daunting, but with enough people pitching in, it might work out in the end. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I strongly support this. I feel we need more "here are a lists of tasks, each that will take no more than 10 minutes of your time to complete" type page for other cleanup duties that require minimal knowledge, just willing fingers, but images need to take priority due to the deadline; the success of this will tell us if other such projects are worth adding. --] 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Why not just treat the watchlist notice with something like ], for ], similar to featured article, but for regular editors? It can be decided on by the community ahead of time, and just be the discussed picture clean up until that's done. Maybe even just rotate out different tasks each day. Sunday can be this backlog, Monday can be that backlog, Tuesday can be this backlog, and so on? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

===]===
Based on the above talk I've started this proposed policy/project/change at ]. Please check it out and weigh in. The specifics as discussed above about a run for the Images problem we have is at ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

This blocked user seems to be using their talk page as a ] while awaiting for the block to expire. I'm not even certain if this is appropriate or not to begin with, and given that I was involved in his block I thought it best to not intervene further (if intervention is warranted at all). So, just a heads' up. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have warned him to stop. ] (]) 12:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::Given the sheer volume of disruptive behavior in the short time this account has existed, I am >-< this close to just indefinitely blocking it. I've gone ahead and protected the talkpage for the duration of the block; there is clearly nothing productive to be said in the interim. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::If you find a blocked user using their talk page for ] protect it right a way! Remember they can link to it from outside and Google indexes it. So can be a destructive ]. ] (]) 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Is YouTube serving a purpose here? ==

Seriously has YouTube ever served as a reliable reference? because all of the instances of it that I have seen in almost two years are links to blantant copyright violations, and if the website is only being used as a spam and copyvio source why isn't it blacklisted? please see this diff see how many violations are there, this can mean potential lawsuits against the foundation. ] (]) 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*''Is YouTube serving a purpouse here?'' &mdash; Yes. There are several articles (including ]) that have legitimate need for the site. The spam blacklist is more intended for specific entries to combat repeated external link spammers. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
**I see but surely there is a way to program the Anti-Spam bots to differeinciate between instances where the site is used as a legitimate reference and when its just used as a stand-alone external link to some copyright violation and revert the latter, right? ] (]) 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
***It would be very hard. If someone posts a video on youtube, perhaps of a major event, it would be near impossible for a bot to determine if they madethe video on their video camera/mobile phone or whether it's a copyvio of a news report. Sure the description could be scanned for strings/regexs like "taken from fox news" but there would also be false positives and many more slipping through the cracks. I would definitely support a proposal to remove a lot of the links to youtube though. The problem I see is how do we approach it? <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">]</font><sup>] &#124; ]</sup> 08:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
****But legitimate sources won't stay as stand alone links for long, maybe program them to just remove the links that aren't using the footnote format? ] (]) 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
****Well for starters you could read ]. ] (]) 20:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
**And there certainly is some legitimate content on YouTube. For example, the British Royal Family has recently established an official "channel", releasing many interesting videos, including previously unseen coverage of the ], this Christmas's Queen's speech was also placed there at the same time the TV broadcast started, none of this would be legitimately avaialble from any other source, and much of it could be considered worthy of being included under "External links", if not as references per se. Now it may be that the urls of resources released on this channel are sufficiently distinct that they wouldn't be affected by blacklisting youTube in general. ] (]) 10:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
**Other example of legitimate external link - ]. Bot removing links that isn't using any particular format doesn't address the initial concern you raised here 24.139.240.25. ] (]) 10:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*There are certainly viable reasons to link to YouTube which defeat a call to spam-blacklist it. However, that does not change the fact that a huge majority of links thereto violate ] and ]. ] (]) 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
** Just so. And we could always whitelist the valid ones... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
***Do you mean admins would have to whitelist Youtube links to be used as a legitimate source? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
***There are over 36,000 links to YouTube on en.wp. Who volunteers to go through them and find the good ones for whitelisting and remove the bad ones? <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Some news organizations and government organizations also post content to YouTube now. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*Yes, sometimes, but see ]. ] (]) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
**What on RS is specific to Youtube beyond any general RS requirements? I might be missing something obvious? There is no mention of Youtube, videos, or copyright on RS, so I think I may be missing something. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*There's an example of an useful YouTube video in ]. It provides a substantial illustration of the subject matter, and does not obviously suffer from any copyright issues. ] (]) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
**I believe that the terms of being in the parks usually state that video and pictures are only permissable for private purposes, so it's not entirely free of copyright qualms. And uploading a video of the ride surely replaces the ride experience to a significant degree. ] (]) 01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
***I can't find any restrictions on photography listed on the Disneyland website (just that they sell disposable cameras), and I cannot recall having any such restrictions brought to my attention on entry. I don't think that a shaky video is a significant replacement for the ride experience, but it does add to the article (e.g. to see the one place where Alice actually appears in this ride). ] (]) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
*Another example of legit Youtube videos are those of the Church of England / Archbishop of Canturbury, which officially releases videos to Youtube. Cheers! ] (]) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*I linked out for ], since my source, ''The New York Times'' did also. I don't see why that would be a problem. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*:That's fine (so long as the video isn't a copyvio, as we don't need to open ''that'' can of worms) but it's worth noting the YouTube stuff is often a poor source for an encyclopedia because it is simply primary evidence. In most cases, an article needs to draw conclusions from the source... except we don't (shouldn't) do that. We need secondary sources for that - ones that view the video and draw the conclusions from it; we then publish the conclusions ''as drawn by the secondary source''. If we draw our own conclusions, that's ] and almost always ]. Not Good.
*:A second, related, point is to question the value of any video link. Does it add to the reader's understanding of the article? If the article is incomplete without the video (in other words, if the article is about the video, not about the subject of the video) then has no place here, save for very extreme circumstances (for instance, I could argue for a link to a certain video by ] from his article, if it wasn't so heavily protected by lawyers). Our articles should always be about what other people saw, thought and did. A YouTube video is rarely that; and an article that links to one should make sure that the full context is apparent without the link.
*:If nothing else, think of our readers: are they reading a DVD version, a printed version, using a screenreader or on a slow connection? A hefty minority of our customers can be excluded from our output if that output is effectively just an advert for a YouTube clip. ➔ ''']''' says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*::There are times when only a link to a non-copyright video clip will suffice to convey content. See ], where the linked clip is beyond concise verbal description. That would be the case whatever the medium the reader is using. --''']''' (]) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*Redvers, you ask "does it add to the reader's understanding of the article?", but you seem to be assuming that the only circumstance in which this would happen would be an article about a video. "Enhance understanding" != "Complete the article". I can see the benefit of a video of a coronation, for example, or a video of a musician, actor, or other performer, and I think those videos would enhance the reader's understanding of an article without the videos becoming the subject of the article. As for linking to videos constituting original research, if the link is not being used as a reference than I fail to see how it constitutes original research. The OR rule doesn't prevent Misplaced Pages ''readers'' from forming their own opinions, so we are not in violation of any of our own guidelines by pointing people to the primary source. We regularly link to primary sources for public domain literature, speeches, etc - how are videos any different, as long as the copyright status is okay? YouTube links have to be monitored carefully because of the potential for copyright violation, but there's no good reason to scrap them entirely. ] (]) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That 'primary source' argument above could certainly be a killer for many YouTube cites. Take for example my ref on ] where the YouTube video is the only evidence that the event mentioned took place. (note that in the AfD discussion the content of the video is used to argue non-notability.) ] (]) 02:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:For what it's worth I've found it useful to link to a Youtube search instead, so for the article ] (yes, juvenile stuff) one link to search of youtube videos on the subject, IMHO, is helpful to someone who wants to get more information and is also preventative of future individual unneeded links which were previously covered in the search. I've also learned to amend that search by sorting it with the highest user-ranked (not simply most-watched) parameter in hopes that the reader gets a better quality video from the selection to view. Another point to consider is that colleges are now posting lectures on Youtube which greatly benefits people worldwide who hunger for the knowledge but have no means to sign-up for the courses themselves. ] 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::If someone has a problem with YouTube content, contact Kathleen Fitzgerald kfitzgerald at google dot com Make sure the content is a violation of Youtube TOS. ] (]) 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Naming issue on Japanese Emperor ==

Can someone look into the recent edits of ]. Mr Clown moved the article on Emperor ] to Showa (the name given to his reign after he died in 1989). Our policy is to use the most common english name, and this one isn't even close - Showa is basically unknown in western literature. The article had been moved once before and immediately moved back by John Kenney.

After Mr. Clown moved the article, ] went and started changing all of the redirects from Hirohito to Showa. Since very few people in the west actually know who Showa refers to, this was a big step in the wrong direction. I moved the article back, and dropped a note on his talk page, after which he proceeded to edit war with me. Could someone please look into his actions? ] (]) 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:No time to do anything personally, but I agree that ] is the name that should be used, and that all references to ] should be changed back (unless they really mean 'Showa' and not 'Hirohito'). See for what needs checking. ] (]) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::I reversed a bunch, but now I'm off to bed and no time to check what remains. Persistent cuss: he even changed references in '']'' and ]. --] | ] 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I've made a minor edit on the ] redirect in order to try and stop the lame move war (6 moves today). Hopefully someone will take the hint and take it to ] if they are really persistent. However, as noted about, I can't see that anything buy Hirohito is the correct title per ]. ] ]] 16:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

: "Showa" is another way to spell a ]. Anything with that name should be a disambiguation link. This person is clearly on his way to annoy many different people. -- ] (]) 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

===]===
An RFC on this issue has opened, comments are welcome. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Heads up for Monday the 7th - schools reopening ==

I thought I'd go ahead and get this out there for admins who might be bored on early Monday morning and/or throughout that day: by sheer probability alone several {{t1|schoolblock}}s have expired over the winter vacation for North America, and even today, on the 3rd, I'm seeing a considerable influx of schoolip vandalism. Judging by a lot of the block set dates from last year, most of the school-related vandalism seems to peak around this time. Anyway, undoubtedly it's going to be fairly chaotic starting around 10am UTC on Jan 07, as a lot of kids are going to be pissed they're back in school. :P There will be donuts, tea, and coffee for those involved in helping out. Cheers =) --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'll do my part by yelling at my school's vandals. :P ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::A good portion of schools on the east coast to the midwest returned to class yesterday and today, hence the influx. Having family who are teachers and kids, I know this to be fact. I also drive past several schools and got stuck behind buses this morning. Schools back in session and the kids are out to play. ] (]) 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I was going to say that, Kelly. Most schools begin the 2nd and 3rd, from my experience. At least starting on different days makes a slower transition into crazy, sudden school vandalism. ''']]''' 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Yep, here's a school I blocked today {{vandal|216.11.202.161}}. Looks like ]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">]</font><sup>] &#124; ]</sup> 13:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm doing my share too. ] (]) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::'''bump''' &mdash; just a quick reminder on this :P --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 09:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Difficult admin ==

I have given up trying to talk to Ryulong, he deleted ] & ] because "No one is going to use "four chan" or "fourchan" i thought we discussed that at ]? Then he reverted my edits on ] and ] with no meaningful edit summary. I have given up speaking to him because he just deletes my messages, the only time he did respond i had to go searching through the history of his talk page to find it. So I was wondering if it would be possible if another admin could tell me why my redirects and other edits were deleted?--] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have recreated these redirects as they look like reasonable search terms. ] (]) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:I had deleted them because I felt they were not reasonable search terms. I will not delete the items again, as there are other users who have said that they think the deletions were not necessary.—] (]) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::Not quite true. This was the ''second'' time you've deleted them, Ryulong. Shouldn't that have already told you that "other users" found these redirects reasonable? You can add me to that list if it will help. I do hope RfD didn't suggest deleting them - can you point us to that discussion? ] (]) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Neither ] nor ] have cross-references from RfD listed in their 'what links here' lists. I would have expected such cross-references if they had been discussed at RfD. However, there have been several RfD activities related to redirects pointing at ]:
:::#] (both kept - now deleted)
:::#] (deleted)
:::#] (kept)
:::#] (speedy delete)
:::#] (pending)
:::--User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::So the deletion and discussion process does not apply to admins and can be bypassed?--] (]) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::No, that's not it at all. There was a mistake, and it's been fixed. This is what we do. Is there some remaining problem to be solved here? ] ] 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, there is a problem of all the past deletions Ryulong has done that have been out of process which need to be restored and put through the correct process. It shouldn't be my job or anyone elses job to restore them, it should be Ryulong as he created the work to start with.--] (]) 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:We don't dole out work based on who we think deserves it. Which past deletions? The ones mentioned here are taken care of and there has been no decision regarding any other deletions. Can you be more specific? ] 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:I doubt these are the only instances pages of being deleted out of process by Ryulong, so I think he should review his past deletions and restore ones that were not put through the correct process.--] (]) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Failing to ] is not a valid reason to demand anyone do anything. ]] 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Man, it's a serious pet peeve of mine when people don't know what the words "assume good faith" mean and use them anyway. Seriousspender, if you feel there's an ongoing problem here and you've been unable to resolve it by talking to the admin in question, there are other means of ] available. I don't see that there's anything left to do here on the admin's noticeboard. Keep in mind that pretty much anyone with any sense considers getting the right answer to be more important than which path was used to arrive there. So, if your concerns are merely procedural, don't worry about it. ] ] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Well if someone Ryulong happilly listens to would remind him of the deletion processes and the problems I have had with communicating with him, that should solve any future problems.--] (]) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Really? Last time I checked, assuming that someone *must* have done other things wrong, therefore they should go back and check their past actions is a textbook case of failing to assume good faith. Given that the user's complaints have been handled, he should either be happy with the resolution and drop it, or go find other examples himself he feels the need to complain about. Continuing to pester another editor even after the resolution of the complaint smacks of a witch hunt to me. ]] 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Resolute, your tone in this discussion is unnecessarily hostile. As you suggested Seriousspended sould review ], may I suggest you take a look at ]? Your tone is unbecoming an administrator on a site that emphasizes civility and discussion. ] (]) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I deleted the redirects on both occasions because they had nothing at ]. I would not think that a website that uses a numeral in both its URL and its name would be looked for in a search engine. I now know that I am mistaken, and it is a serious assumption of bad faith on Seriousspender's part to want to review every other deletion I have made, just because of these two particular redirects that I mistakenly saw as unnecessary. I think this needs a nice {{tl|resolved}} on the top.—] (]) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This has nothing to do with any assumption of bad faith. Making useful contributions generally requires ''two'' things - good faith ''and'' competence. This means you have to have the desire ''and the ability'' to do the right thing. You made a mistake, an you were unresponsive to discussion of it. You gave no indication of knowing why it was a mistake. So, it's perfectly sensible for someone to want to check whether you've made other similar mistakes. ] ] 15:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speedily delete redirects just because there are no internal hyperlinks pointing to them. Redirects can be perfectly legitimate alternative titles, mis-spellings, and sub-topic names without their being internally hyperlinked to. ] (]) 12:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Attn: Coredesat Why was Empowerment Zone deleted? ==

Why was Empowerment Zone deleted? It's a federal income tax program prescribed by Congress that promotes economic development in distressed communities in the US. My citations were the IRS and HUD. It's not an advertisement. You have entries for Federal Urban Enterprise Zones, and state enterprise zones. It's the same damn thing! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Try ]. ] 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:How did you manage to find AN so fast? It was quite a few months before I found about this place. ] (]) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::] exists, and hasn't been deleted or moved since it was created. I'm also not seeing any deletion resembling that name is Coredesat's . ] (]) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I deleted an article called ] (capital Z) in January 2007 as G11. I hope the writing of terrible articles on this topic each January doesn't become a trend, though I really have no opinion on this page now (there's obviously something wrong with it). --]] 09:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::A year ago. That would explain why it didn't show up in your last fifty deletions :) ] (]) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] and non-admin AfD closes ==

I would like to clarify the role of non-admin closure for AfD discussions. ] has been closing debates after a day rather than the five days prescribed by ] - ''"The discussion lasts at least five days"''. Examples of this include:
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:].
And another example where the user closed a discussion after a day and an admin subsequently reopened it .

I know that there are some instances where out of process early closures are acceptable such as ] and (maybe slightly more controversially) ] however I was under the impression that there was only ] for non-admins to close the most obvious of prossess based keeps. Even though accepting the exceptions some of the closing decisions seem a bit off. For example ] was closed as speedy keep after 19 hours without giving a reason even though I don't think it meets any of the ] (nomination seems to have been in good faith by a non banned editor and there was an additional editor who thought the article should be deleted). Other examples are ] closed as keep after 22 hours as keep despite multiple editors stating that they thought that the appropriate action would be to delete the article and ] closed after 17 hours without a unanimous consensus. Most of the other closes had only recieved keep !votes at the time of closure but none had the overwhelming pile-ons that usually justify ]. If the discussions had been allowed to continue past a day then editors with dissenting opinions may have contributed. Additionally where a reason was given for closure it is usually ] <small>(links to essay)</small>, such as: ''"The result was Keep. Based on the discussion, it satisfies WP:N."'' or ''"The result was Keep per WP:N."''. These seem more like arguments to give in the discussion rather than a reason to close it - which should be based on the consensus established by the discussion.

I tried to discuss the issue with the user (see ]and ]) and have informed them of this "thread". I think the issue of who can close AfD and in what circumstances should be clarified in addition to ]. ] (]) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]]

* I think in the areas where there is a dispute as to the merit of the AfD non-admin closes should be prohibited. In most of the cases cited above (all but 2 I think?) the keep !votes are unanimous. In these cases, he should be citing WP:SNOW not individual policies, because he is not empowered to make a policy judgment in the closure of an AfD. <sup>]]</sup> 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::Still, you are right - you can't judge SNOW based on a listing that lasted only one day. One day AfDs should only be closed IMHO if they are bad-faith nominations. NAHID needs to take a step back and let the process work the way it is supposed to. <sup>]]</sup> 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I agree absolutly. I make non-admin XFD closures regularly but closing after one day of discussion is ridiculous.--]]] 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Most of the unanimous Keep debates had only 5-8 !votes, after only a day does this really represent enough of the community to support a ] close? ] (]) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]
:* I've found some admin / non-admin closure (or if you see other afd discussion achieve) within 1 or 2 days and even within few hours. Just curious about them (Though in some cases we usually close afd discussion as keep / speedy keep and delete / speedy delete, we should stick with policy.)--]] 08:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
] may not be the right idea to quote in these closures, as 17 or 22 hours don't provide enough time to outside editors to raise a "reasonable objection", while drawing people to consensus is part of the reason we take AfDs to WikiProjects. Besides, this particular editor doesn't seem to well versed on policies and guidelines, much less the spirit of Misplaced Pages. As is evident from my recent interaction with the person (including bouts of '''' and '''', where the editor's repeating excuse was ]). Non-admin closures are for editors in good standing (and that would include constructive contributions, not just assiduous RC patrolling), and that too may not apply here. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
*Aditya, please don't discrediting other contribution and don't bring your personal matter here (You did these before with other editor). Through the links you took it personally. Seems like, you're getting a chance here and taking advantage by making false accusation on me. --]] 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::This exactly is my point. On this very thread the editor in discussion has already gone against ], ], ] (going ] of course) and, more importantly ] (other stuff exists is one of the lamest of reasons for any action, both on and off Misplaced Pages).
::] may not be the right idea to approve of a weak grip on policies and principles, as it very much turns AfDs into ]s. Well, I'm outta here to keep my ] and seek some ]... how was that for using cuts (a.k.a. ])? :). Cheers. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
*Aditya, I'm assuming good faith here. But, you should aware about your issues and above matters (]). That's not acceptable.--]] 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Most of these closes are not correct, in that they are inappropriate speedy/snowball keeps (something non-administrators should not be doing) and the closer asserts his/her own personal view on the merits of the deletion discussion in the close, rather than evaluating the consensus. Suggest blanket-reopen and admonishment to avoid further such closes. ''']''' 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Daniel is correct here. ]
::::Armbarred? ] (]) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*Well, when I first visited this topic, I thought there is something going really wrong. Then I visited all the '''Delete Discussion''' and found it absolutely pointless to bring such a complain against the user ]. To my surprise only one vote for ''delete'' was submitted in one discussion and rest of the discussions received either keep or week keep. Some discussions also received '''Strong Keep''' as well. A better consensus than this one can ONLY be found in an Utopian world. I know we have some policies that recommend us to keep deletion debate open for five days at least. But we shouldn't forget that at the end of the day Misplaced Pages is for the users, not for the ill-minded Wikipedians who try to convert it as a text war playground (it's my right to express my view, and I am not being uncivilized at all here :-p). When an article receives so many KEEP vote, even less than a day, it clears the picture that someone tagged them intentionally (unfortunately nowadays it became a common culture here in Misplaced Pages). And for the betterment of WP, I strongly support a quick closing of such discussion. You may talk about policy. Remember, policy is not an unchangeable religion book that we can not modify. In such case, if requires, I prefer to start a debate on ''Policy Modification''. Cheers. -- ]]] 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Presumably you mean policy modification to make what he has been doing acceptable, which it is not at present. Good luck with that. In the meantime, he should be asked not to do it any more, even if none of his closes actually need re-opening. ] (]) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Just as a point of fact, this discussion (mentioned above) involved multiple users who expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted - ]. ] (]) 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]]
:While I agree in principle that there's no reason to keep debates open longer than necessary to gauge concensus, I'll also note that Misplaced Pages is for the users, not the users who may have been online on a particular day and saw the debate. It's possible that all those who would recommend deletion happened to be offline on that particular day, or busy elsewhere, or just didn't see the notice. That's a major reason for the five-day rule. To delete an article without giving due process is unnecessary, and may actually increase the headache (with additional debates, discussion, and DRV). Also, per ], uphill battles are still winnable, and 5-8 keep votes could easily be overcome with sound policy arguments in favor of deletion. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yep. That would definitely mean a lot of hassle. Like when the user in discussion fair use of a non-free image I uploaded. When I put a tag and detailed the rational on talk page, he went on to put it to . Luckily, another user saw it and the tag, and the user for that. He also managed to get the image deleted, though it was restored (it involved three highly active image patrolers, too), and the user apologized to the rebuking party (no concern about me, of course). But, overall it was quite a hassle. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{vandal|72.226.138.248}} ==

This editor has added some seemingly true bits of information to several articles, but I noticed his/her contribs being reverted by other users and the user being warned for vandalism. I suspect that this user is adding false information to articles, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter in question so I can't confirm this. Could an admin please review this editor's contribs throughly. I've left a note on the user's talk page asking him/her to find sources for his information.--] (]) 04:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:The edits to ] were obviously vandalism, but the edits to ] don't seem to be problematic, as they reflect facts included in the article of the fellow who's being linked. I could be missing something there. But, there have been no edits since the final warning was issued. ] <small>]</small> 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:It looks to me like it's the Chaka Kahn edits that were getting him in trouble. I don't know enough about the subject matter to say the other edits are true or not, but I noticed he added <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to some unsourced factual allegations and cleaned up some stuff on ] and other articles. I don't think anything made after the final warning warrants a block. ] (]) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== The tendentiousness of ] ==

I'm not sure about bringing this here. It's not an acute situation but troublesome. {{User|Blackworm}} apparently has a long history of contentious argument with other editors, particularly on articles and user talk pages. The main articles are ], ], ], and ], although there are some others. I'm not going give specific diffs but a quick skim through his talk page will reveal various conflicts. Of particular note is the Circumcision article where his conflict has been with five editors, three of them admins, who he accused of ]ing the article. I'm not going to qualify whether anyone in the discussion is "right", just that the arguments often got very heated and accusations of violations of ] flew from both sides.

A look at reveals a 4 to 1 ratio of talk page to mainspace edits which seem unusually high to me, particularly for so few articles. After I had a few moderately productive exchanges with him on the ] page ( ) clarifying points, I let the matter rest. ], who had asked me to look in on the Reproductive rights talk page because of the conflicts there, decided to disengage from the discussion. I left her supporting this break and saying ''"Blackworm has a point as well as an obvious POV in relation to this article. However I believe his time would be better spent conceptualizing a structured counterpoint section with relevant and valid sources/cites than haggling over wording in the first few sentences. Such a section would make it much easier to incorporate the view into the lede of the article."'' Now, saying I believe he has a strong POV (about abortion in this particular case) is not the same as saying he is deliberately inserting POV into the article text. Yet Blackworm extracted only that bit to post on my talk page, ignoring what were good suggestions for him to productively add to the article. So there were to me, also taking me to task for my sexist characterizations of the vandals of my user page as "boys". (Perhaps it wasn't clear to him that I actually meant boys, as in under 13 years of age, because of the level of immaturity of their comments. And no offense meant to our younger editors, many of whom are quite mature and responsible on Misplaced Pages.)

None of this specifically violates policy yet as an overview it concerns me. I would hesitate to call him a ] but he sure tries to fit the bill in several ways. Because my exchanges with him have been over content of an article, I'm wary of taking any action. And I'm not sure whether any action is really needed. However, I'd like feedback on whether I'm being overly hard on an abrasive but productive editor or whether my perceptions are on target. Cheers, ]] 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:Looking over the diffs, he seems exceedingly quick to ABF and look for offence where none is intended, and lash out at those who are trying to help. My impression? - he's here to fight and POV-push more than build the encyclopedia. I'd say he bears watching. I need to go a bit further back in his contribs, but if this has been his pattern for awhile, and if it's not improving... I'd support some sort of limit-setting. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>]</b> ]<font color="navy">♦</font>]</font> 06:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::I apologize in advance if this response is too long. I will admit past failure to remain calm, ], and (especially in the case of ]) failures of ], ], and ]. I am a relatively new editor. I don't believe I have recently violated any policy or guideline, unless I'm misunderstanding something. I attempted to research "tendentious editing," but found only ], which states, ''This is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.''

::I agree with Pigman that the situation seems troublesome. I respectfully submit that a reasonable editor would have interpreted comments Pigman authored and posted in Pigman's User space as sexist, regardless of whether the reasonable editor would believe them offensive. I presented an objection, while quoting my evidence, on Pigman's talk page ], and asked him to consider removing or rephrasing the material.

::I began the thread, perhaps hastily, on a completely different subject; namely Pigman's obscure accusation on another editor's Talk page that I displayed "obvious POV in relation to this article" (the article apparently ]). In the context of recently trying desperately hard to ] in my contributions, especially in discussions with ] in ] and elsewhere, this accusation from Pigman came as a huge blow; making that particular guideline even harder to internalize.

::I first encountered Pigman because he was called upon by ] to help resolve a dispute involving gender bias. (Phyesalis did this at the apparent suggestion of ], and both Phyesalis and Cailil are members of ], where I am seemingly involved in yet another dispute, this time mainly with Cailil.) Forgive me if the combination of Pigman's (IMO) unfounded accusation of "obvious POV" on my part, and the apparently gender biased comments in his User space, caused me to question Pigman's judgment in a matter concerning gender bias (sexism) in gender-related articles. I don't believe that means Pigman's claim of tendentious editing on my part is supported.

::To respond to Kathryn NicDhàna's apparent concerns, I will relate some history in this paragraph, which some readers may wish to skip. <small>Recently I have somewhat stepped away from ], after the one RfC I have ever initiated (after several archives' worth of often heated discussion, and some soul searching), drew a total of four editors; two opposing opinions, one of them from ], who was not until then a contributor to the page to my knowledge. Two editors (including myself) supported my proposed changes. I disengaged, and did not touch the article. Yes, I use article Talk perhaps disproportionate compared to making article edits , but I believe this appropriate in articles on controversial subjects -- I view my high ratio of Talk posts to article edits as meritorious, not as evidence of disruption or other wrongdoing. In the spirit of ] and other accepted principles, I then shifted my focus toward correction what I saw as policy violations (especially ]) in other gender-related articles, and refining my understanding of Misplaced Pages and its ].</small>

::I point the reader toward my recent ], as well as recent entries my User and Talk pages, as evidence of a positive shift in my behaviour. I humbly believe I have especially displayed considerable patience and understanding in my many recent interactions with ]; an editor I (again, humbly, please review the evidence and judge) consider very new, very inexperienced especially in matter of Misplaced Pages policy, and presently disruptive. I invite specific questions, I welcome suggestions that I strikeout mistakes or offensive content, and I welcome requests for me to consider apologizing for specific actions. I will abide by any consensus arrived at by neutral administators here. ] (]) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I think all you guys need to take a step back and try to understand where you coming from and where you going. All of us have feelings some are more sensetive than others! ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Pigman is right. I was going to bring something here myself but due to the wikistress of dealing with Blackworm I'm trying to take a wikibreak. Blackworm, as he has admitted above, has failed to assume good faith. He has escalated disputes to other areas of wikipedia. This behaviour is consistent with treating Misplaced Pages is a battleground.

At this point I must mention that I am involved with Blackworm's dispute at ]. I have also responded to his content dispute at ]] and his comments at ] (which I called soapboxing, Blackworm says he was not, so I take his word for it) - basically it would be fair to say I have a history with this user.

However I am not involved in the dispute at ]. I did offer an outside opinion. I did request that somebody from ] who understands all the issues in that dispute have a look, and I did recommend that Phyesalis seek a third opinion. I consider Blackworm's above post - naming me to reflect his pattern of escalation.

;A summary of recent ] from Blackworm
#Blackworm was been in dispute with Phyesalis in articles relating to ] - especially ] & ] since October-November 2007. This dispute has spilled out into ]. That page is on my watch list - I made a post to that page ''not supporting'' Phyesalis's position. She contacted me and I recommended she either RFC the article or ask "someone like Pigman" - Pigman is an uninvolved admin. Asking an uninvolved sysop for a WP:3O is normal practice.
#Blackworm accuses Phyesalis of canvassing. Which to my knowledge is totally untrue. I came to ] because it's on my watch list. And Pigman was asked as an uninvolved for an overview of the situation.
#:Blackworm did not accuse Phyesalis of canvassing. Blackworm recommended that Phyesalis read ] if the user had not done so already and asked Phyesalis how many users Phyesalis had contacted. There was nothing "untrue" about what Blackworm said in that context; and the question and recommendation seem reasonable, as Phyesalis is a relatively new user, and as Phyesalis has made a number of requests for outside views, (presumably all within the guidelines of WP:CANVASS,) including, I believe, at least one article-content RfC and also including a series of talk-page messages to a number of users including , which I saw and which is how I got involved in the discussion at ], and from there subsequently ]. --] (]) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The diffs I'm referring to are and . It would also be of benefit to those not aware of the situation to know that A) I agreed with your position on ] and B) that you have worked very very hard to keep ''that'' discussion on-topic and productive.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
#I added the ] (WP:GS) template to the talk page along with Wikiproject Human Rights (I am a member of both projects and both were pertinent to the discussion). On January 2nd Phyesalis joins WP:GS. A day later, Blackworm makes this post to its talk page (WT:GS). This post is ], in saying "''is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors?''" he basically describes the project as a povpushing cabal. I responded with this - which Blackworm called a ]. I had my behaviour overviewed by ], an uninvolved, ] also endorsed my remarks. As did 2 other editors (see ]).

He, then raised some concerns with the project's overview I stated I wouldn't have a problem changing them if there was consensus to do so. Consensus has not yet been sought, but he went ahead and changed the project's overview to his preferred state today. Wikiprojects are defined and organized by their members. Blackworm is welcome to join, but at present he is not a member and even then he would need consensus for such a change. For the record I prefer his version - but due to the stress of dealing with him I am on a break, another member of the Project will have to moot it for a !vote.

;History of similar behaviour
His comments to WT:GS are not the first time that Blackworm has engaged in drama to make a point. A discussion on his talk page about his objections on ] illustrates this further.

These are talk page discussions (very very long ones) demonstrating a history of this behaviour.
]
]
]
]

;Conclusion
Misplaced Pages is about achieving consensus on talk pages based upon staying positive, on topic and assuming good faith of the other editor. Blackworm has made a number of good contributions to the Project but is failing to assume good faith. His dispute with Phyesalis has produced deadlock on at least 4 talk pages. But the matter is that Blackworm has escalated his dispute with Phyesalis to ]. The project is not a ] but he is treating it like one. I fully endorse Pigman's view. I see only 3 ways forward this goes to a user RFC, there is sysop review and intervention or it is taken to Arbcom.

Last night Blackworm left this comment at my talkpage I will not be responding to it. And I am formally asking that Blackworm not edit my talk page again. If he has any issue with me take it here or to RFC--] <sup>]</sup> 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:Why not take it to ANI and see if others can help you deescalate this. If that does not solve the problem you can go up the ] ] (]) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:Cailil, I will respect your request that I do not edit your talk page until you tell me otherwise. I dispute several of your claims above:
:* ''"Blackworm has failed to assume good faith."'' Not in your case, or the case you accuse me of, namely, ]. Sadly, the reverse is not true, and as I understand it the only remaining issue between us is your accusation of bad faith on my part, having agreed on all article content we have ever discussed.
:* ''"He has escalated disputes to other areas of wikipedia. This behaviour is consistent with treating Misplaced Pages is a battleground."'' I deny mixing disputes between pages, or personally targetting editors, and I do not share your view that cordially escalating disputes by official channels is inappropriate. If that were so, Pigman's "escalating" the dispute here would be inappropriate. It is not.
:* I deny accusing ] of canvassing. I noticed activity which, if continued, may be seen as constituting canvassing, and wanted to make sure Phyesalis, a new user, was aware of the guideline, so I suggested (] and ]) that Phyesalis may wish to read the guideline.
:* I apologize if editing the Project page while not a member was inappropriate. As I make clear ] ], there was no attempt to bypass or deny consensus. ] (]) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ]
:* I deny that I ''"basically the project as a povpushing cabal."'' Nothing ] warrants such a strong accusation.
:Thank you. ] (]) 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I do apologise if you found my tone or attitude aggressive - it was not intended to be. However I'm calling it as I see it. You have stated above that you have not accused me of bad faith. I would point you to your claim that I personally attacked you - which you still I hold I guess - with this post and your thoroughly inaccurate description of my editing practice and philosophy at ]. I submitted my behaviour to sysop review immediately and have done so again in order to address your concern that I have ''wrongly'' stated that you have failed to assume good faith. I await the views of outside editors on this matter and will abide by consensus. If the community feels I wrongly accused you of anything I will withdraw the remarks--] <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I do not hold your apparent view that an accusation of having made a personal attack is necessarily an assumption of bad faith. I used the word "seem" in my impression of your editing philosophy, in direct reference to your previous comments, but I apologize if the suggestion offended you. I disagree with ] assessment of my behaviour and asked for clarification ] (obtaining none so far), but nonetheless in the spirit of ] I am willing to unconditionally withdraw my accusation of your having made a personal attack in that instance, with my apologies. I now ask that you consider withdrawing the accusations you make which I deny above. Thank you. ] (]) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:], ] is a very respectable senior editor at WikiPedia, disagreeing with his evaluation of you does not help your case. Furthemore, after looking more into your issues, and understanding the motivation for your behavior, I recommend you work with your peers and follow the guidance of ] for the good of WikiPedia ™. I hope we can adjourn from this matter and enjoy our fine weekend, but I will leave the decision in Pigman's capable hands, being that the admin is your mentor. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you for your advice Igor Berger. Could you please consider expanding on your understanding of the motivation for my behavior? Use my Talk page if you wish.

::Forgive me, I do not know who the "senior" Administrators are, nor do I see why disagreeing them and discussing the case with them hurts my case any more than it would with any other Administrator, or arguably any editor. I am generally honest with people and share my views, favourable or not. I have withdrawn the accusation (which seemed to bother Jehochman) of Cailil's making a personal attack and have struck out my comments on the relevant Talk page. I consider my issues with Jehochman solved until Jehochman tells me otherwise.

::No disrespect intended, but I believe I am in the best position to evaluate my choice of mentors. If why wish to read why I am reluctant to accept Pigman as my mentor, the following <small>small text</small> comments may offer insight. If you do not, which I would fully understand, please skip them.

::<small>Pigman's parenthetical comments (''"I actually meant boys, as in under 13 years of age, because of the level of immaturity of their comments"'') in the post that started this thread are not a defense against my accusations of his User space comment being sexist. Even if we were to accept as given that Pigman's User page vandals must be under 13 and immature (I do not take that as given, and see no reason to), how does that imply they are male? Why ''boys'' to describe two seemingly unrelated vandals of presumably unknown gender? Pigman has not explained this crucial point. Pigman seems to assume his first User page vandal is male, and the second one is too. What is stopping him from assuming all his future User page vandals are male? At what number of vandals will Pigman start considering whether any of them are ''girls?''

::I wouldn't normally care at all, to be perfectly honest, since I seem to routinely perceive sexism in places others do not, and have learned not to mention it. I also believe one can be mildly or perhaps even moderately sexist and still edit most of Misplaced Pages ]. But one member of ] went to Pigman at the suggestion of another member to resolve a dispute in a gender-related article, and to my complete shock and heartbreak, considering our seemingly positive and fruitful discussion, Pigman accused me of ''obvious POV in relation to this article'' on the Talk page of one of the editors involved. That accusation is on the record. I made a huge effort to remain patient and neutral throughout that ordeal, and the effort was a failure in the eyes of an Administrator. I would enjoy hearing from that Administrator, if he is truly a mentor, why he thinks my effort was a failure. I do want to become a better editor and ].</small>

::If I'm bound to live with Pigman's silence on our remaining issues, so be it. Maybe I offended him somehow, maybe he is just keeping an eye on me (I can't say I blame him given my history), or maybe Pigman is simply a busy admin; in any case, I ultimately don't believe an explanation is owed me from Pigman regarding his accusation of POV or the contents of Pigman's User space. I invite discussion between Pigman and I elsewhere, such as on my Talk, if Pigman so wishes. I apologize to Pigman for any missteps, past or present. I'm fine with dropping all current issues with Pigman if that is fine with Pigman. I'll strikeout or delete my messages on Pigman's Talk page if he so wishes.

::One thing I would beg for an Administrator to limit as soon as possible, however, is this ridiculous ''talk'' of escalation by non-Administrators, such as Phyesalis' multiple RfC:User threats against me in article Talk and on my User_talk (threats never reciprocated by me, but yet never actually carried out by Phyesalis), and now, sadly, Cailil's talk of escalation below. I'm dumbfounded that Cailil is now advocating escalation of this issue in this forum. It's not about article content as far as I can see. Is it about the petty issues between Cailil and I? If this is ''really'' to be escalated, I'm begging that someone please do it -- this instant, tomorrow, in a month, whenever you feel it appropriate. But stop threatening to do it, especially if you're not an Administraor, please. This is one reason (out of many, I'm sure) to respect Pigman. Thank you, Pigman, you moved the process along, asked for outside opinion, and expressed your concerns always assuming good faith. But my patience with non-Administrators' ''talk'' about formal escalation or disciplinary measures (Phyesalis and Cailil), highly debatable claims about my actions (Cailil), and reckless, disruptive editing of articles (Phyesalis, but at least that has stopped, for the moment) has its limits; and with all respect, I would really, honestly, rather be helping articles than defending myself in meta-discussions in this forum about my behaviour and especially about my underlying motivations or the possibility of disciplinary action against me. Either I'm doing ], or I'm not. Please let me know, and I'll take it under advisement and perhaps work on it. I will take everyone's good faith comments here seriously, and will try hard to assume good faith in others. ] (]) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Horse Shit, I am not interested in entering in your protractive convoluted justification of strawman defence. I came here to give you a hand but you are exibiting the same type of behavior as you are beeing blamed for by everyone else who is involved with you. Your protracted essay, has not interest for me. If you cannot work in Tranquility and harmony with your peers, you should consider the consequences. I am getting ready to recommend a ban on you to sysop. If you cannot do a 180 here and now, you will pay the penalty. Have a nice day, ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Igor, I know how difficult dealing with this issue is, but would you mind moderating your above post a little.--] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Igorberger, if you feel that banning me from Misplaced Pages is both warranted and desirable, I invite you to justify it in the appropriate forum. Thank you. ] (]) 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Blackworm this needs to cleared up - I am not saying, and have not said that you "are acting in bad faith" - there would be no discussion in that situation. Comments made in bad faith are reverted and reported as trolling. I have said that you ''failed to assume good faith''. This is the same as saying you have not assumed good faith. It's not about your edits, it's about your attitude to other editors and comments to them. I recognize that you have made good contributions to the encyclopedia. However your comments about Pigman, about me (above and otherwise detailed here) & about WikiProject Gender studies (above and in the ] diff), which is in effect a comment on all of its members, show you not assuming that any of the rest of us are working in good faith.
:::::Again unless the community tells me I am misundersting ] in this case I will continue to stand over my comments. Notwithstanding that, you can start assuming good faith at any time and I would be happy to see my concerns become past tense and if that happened I would recognize that any failure to AGF was historical, as I am sure would everyone else. Everyone deserves a second chance but that chance needs to be taken--] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::You assert that I failed to assume good faith. I deny this and assert that I was assuming good faith, but express an apology for and made amends for any behaviour I can reasonably see that would lead you to that conclusion, including striking out comments. In light of this, you continue to assert that I failed to assume good faith. Who, in your opinion, is presently acting in good faith -- me, you, both of us, or neither of us?
::::::]: ''Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.'' ] (]) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

;Response from Phyesalis
As the main editor involved with Blackworm in this series of pages, I would support that venue which would most likely have lasting and productive results. As previously noted, I have disengaged from 4 pages because I find there is no productive approach to co-editing with him. I would like to get back to working on the articles. I am a newbie and am unfamiliar with this process, but it seems like there is a consensus building toward some formal step, I see no reason to present arguments or respond to Blackworm's characterization of me and our interactions at this time. I think my speak for themselves. However, I would be happy to provide additional information with diffs upon request. Thank you for your time in this matter. ] (]) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

;Comment from Coppertwig
I've been trying to encourage Phyesalis and Blackworm to get along with each other, and to discourage them from posting comments about editor behaviour on article talk pages. After initially getting involved (Dec. 2) I've seen improvement in the behaviour of both users, and the article talk page discussions, in which I'm involved, seem to me to have gotten more productive, focussing on article content issues.

After a number of exchanges such as one, in which Phyesalis had used the phrase ''"disrupted a constructive and good faith attempt between two editors"'' and Blackworm responded by patiently and civilly explaining Misplaced Pages policy, I posted message to Blackworm on Blackworm's talk page, commending Blackworm for calmness and civility in responding to posts from Phyesalis.

Phyesalis has been focussing on trying to insert certain statements into the articles and Blackworm and I have been trying to explain that they violate ] and ]. Some progress has been made in discussing the different points of view on this and a number of compromises have been attempted, and I expect that if discussion can be kept civil and openminded we will eventually reach some sort of consensus.

I would like to encourage everyone involved (without implying that some are not doing so already) to remember that things look different to people with different points of view, so that what looks to one person like a perfectly justified and useful remark often looks to another person like an avoidable and inflammatory remark. Therefore, we all need to take extra care to ensure that our posts not only seem courteous in our own eyes but also seem so to others; and we also need to realize that a remark that appears discourteous may not seem so to the one who wrote it. --] (]) 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:Coppertwig, I know how difficult it can be trying to mediate (even just informally) between editors and I think you've done your best and a pretty good job. This is an open suggestion to Blackworm and Phyesalis as well. In regard to the on going disputes between Phyesalis & Blackworm would you all be willing to try formal mediation? As this requires all party assent Coppertwig you would need to be willing to take part in at least the ] mediation, if the others both agree to it. ] is a dispute resolution method and could/should help resolve their dispute--] <sup>]</sup> 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::I would like to respond to Coppertwig's comments by first mentioning that I recognize him to be a valuable member of WP. However, I would like to point out that Coppertwig has accompanied Blackworm from ], to ], and onto ]. His post does not make it clear that he also edits these pages and is an active participant in the related disputes. Originally, I considered mentioning Coppertwig in this dispute, but due to his general civility and the fact that he did compromise or work toward solutions in a few instances, I was willing to overlook some tendentious edits/arguments and continue to AGF.

::In response to Cailil, I would be most willing to enter into formal mediation with Coppertwig and Blackworm. I acknowledge I am a newbie, and made some newbie missteps, but I feel justified in my perspective. I would welcome mediation (as I hope it will be a learning experience). ] (]) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If either of you feel the need, I'm in. Be ]. ] (]) 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::In response to Phyesalis: I don't remember any specific allegations of me doing "tendentious edits/arguments" or of me apparently not trying to work towards solutions in any situation. I thought you and I were getting along well, in spite of being on opposite sides of a couple of disputes. If you have any problems with my behaviour, please take it up with me on ], providing sufficient specific details to allow me to respond constructively.

:::Re mediation: since Phyesalis and Blackworm have agreed to mediation and my participation is apparently required, I also agree to ], at least tentatively. Would one of you like to file the ], or shall we work together on defining what the dispute is before filing the request, or what is the next step? I won't be completely sure I'm agreeing to participate until after the request is filed, so I can see the description of the dispute. --] (]) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize: I should have stated at the beginning that I've edited all four articles mentioned at the top of this section, and that I've very often agreed with Blackworm on article content issues. --] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:If there's a feeling on all sides that mediation would be useful, then a ] is probably the best next step. Of course, mediation is only useful if all parties are committed to it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== List of Touhou Project characters ==

] used to have a number of images tagged with {{tl|CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. ] removed these, probably related to ]; the images were subsequently deleted. Since the deleting admin seems to be offline, discussion ended up ].

The of the team has a which links to a for questions on derivative works. A page of that geocities site was cited for the licensing. (For instance, see ).

I've done what I can. We need the license/translation verified, and some discussion of whether the images uploaded by ] should be undeleted. ] 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:]: there has to be some trusted users in there. ]
:Ive talked to a few ja.wiki users and have gotten mixed translations, for that reason I asked that we get a confirmation by having the copyright holder e-mail ] ] 15:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::What kind of "mixed translations" are you getting? It will help us better if you specifically state them. ] (]) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A question I think would be if the "license" could be classified as "free", mostly based on the third point: ''"3. Please don't modify the image such that it's not clear that the image had been modified. So changing colours, adding fake bullets onto the image, and changing the names of spell cards are not good."'' <sub>→]]</sub> 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
: In the images you deleted, this was followed by "However, if you state that you modified the image for the above case, then it is fine." Assuming the text/translation is accurate, this is not disallowing derivative works, but imposing a condition that they be identified as derivative works. ] 16:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, I was reading the text on the talk page, and assumed it was the same as for all images in question. <sub>→]]</sub> 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::: So, do you plan to undelete them? ] 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: I can do that when a confirmation has arrived via otrs, I'm still uncertain that the license would hold. <sub>→]]</sub> 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: You've already admitted you didn't read the image page; you didn't state a CSD criteria for deletion, and you didn't give notice to the uploader. Do I need to take this to deletion review? ] 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I had read the talk page of ], and then checked the image page, and as the pre formated text boxes looked so similar, I thought they had the exact same content. A couple of points, why I think the license isn't ok: §2: "but please keep their ratios the same", don't know how to weight "please" in a legal document, but I'm afraid it would resolve to probition. There is no statement that the images can be reused, if the license is only for wikipedia, then it's unfree, also there is no statement of the abillity to use the images for comercial use. <sub>→]]</sub> 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::: It doesn't need to explictly allow commercial use. The text/translation, if accurate, doesn't forbid commercial use, and it refers to strategy guides and such which would typically be commercial products.
::::::: I would read "don't change the aspect ratio" as a condition, but if others think this condition is so burdensome and limiting to derivative works, then it needs to be discussed first, rather than deleting the images without prior notice. This is, I think, an out-of-process deletion, and you really should undelete them. (I had some concerns about the images too, but since nobody has so far brought up anything even remotely related to my own concerns, I won't bother with them.) ] 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::"Don't change the aspect ratios" only applies to the original screenshot in its uncropped resolution (800x600), since the images are cropped from said screenshots (permissible under #4), that criteria does not apply here. ] (]) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We could solve this perhaps by answering following question: Am I allowed to use these images to create an own computer game? <sub>→]]</sub> 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
: I'm guessing by this you would say no. What's your reason? ] 05:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Inappropriate block ==

Hi. I made some minor edits to ] and so have been watching it regularly on my watchlist. Recently I noticed that ] complained of someone removing a piece of trivia from the article in his edit summary when he restored it. This trivia was promptly re-removed by ] with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 181250194 by Jnelson09; rm minor unreferenced trivia." This raised some interesting questions in my mind, as it appeared to me that the other trivia in the section was also "minor" and is also mostly unreferenced; in addition, it seemed to me that trivia saying a dialogue happened in a movie is inherently referenced.

Deiz then removed it, claiming violation of verifiability policies, and Duhman009 restored it claiming a "POV" edit by Deiz. I was then surprised to see a revert by Deiz with the edit summary that Duhman009 was blocked. It seemed to me, given my comments above, that Deiz was on pretty shaky ground. I then checked their talk pages and noted that immediately after the removal by Deitz above, he left a message on Duhman009's talk page, stating "If you don't want your contributions deleted then don't add useless unsourced trivia to WP. Pretty simple." That seems like a rude, unhelpful message to leave on a newbie's talk. Also, Duhman's comments on Deitz's talk seem to be in good faith, and he does make some good points (which I mentioned above).

Basically I'm writing this because I was shocked to see Deiz was even an admin. This seems like an extremely immature exchange and overreaction. I don't know if this is the appropriate place or what ought to be done (as it is only a 24 hour block), but I think it's important not to leave some kind of permanent black mark on Duhman009's record for actions and comments which I think are perfectly understandable. --] (]) 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oh don't worry about me, I'm actually thinking of framing this as a fine example of Power Abusage :)] (]) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:Without delving in the details of the edits (something which is, actually, not that germane), what you describe is ]; the repeated insertion (or removal) of the same information without trying to achieve consensus on the article talk page. A short block is a common measure to nip that sort of behavior in the bud (and, indeed, is supposed to be automatic after the third revert). It's usually considered ''bad form'' for an administrator to block someone for edit warring when directly involved in the same edits&mdash; but not necessarily inappropriate. Have you expressed your concerns to the administrator himself? (For instance, by leaving a polite inquiry on their talk page). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Hey Coren, the IP I used to type yesterday (128.121.126.103) was not mine, it's one of the many proxy servers that has not been banned from Misplaced Pages, you might want to add it to the list :) ] (]) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Block seems a bit long and would have been best enforced by somebody not involved.
::As to the content, I believe the word you are looking for is "crap" :) --] (]) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The entire section was crap, I just figured, might as well add to the pile :P ] (]) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Lol, he's actually an admin, wow, didn't even noticed nor would I ever have guessed by his attitude. Just goes to show you that 95% of people with any sort of power shouldn't have any because he or she will abuse it. Any way, all of my points were valid: He was using his PPOV to determine what should and shouldn't be on the page, he did not give a proper reason why it was removed, the content was more or less the same as the rest, the entire section was un-sourced and now I learned that there was a conflict of interest. I'm starting to think that I would make a better admin or mod (not that I would want to :P). I personally see this as a victory since the entire section was removed, it's fair justice. Thanks for the support guys. --] (]) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:(ec)While Deiz probably should not have issued the block (as he was involved in the dispute), Duhman's costs him any possible sympathy. Twenty-four hours may be a ''bit'' long, but I do not disagree with the block here. ] ] 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::The first comment I left was pretty much neutral and straight to the point, but after his harsh reply, I started talking to his level of rudeness. I don't see why I should stay civil when someone else (especially someone with the title of admin) can't do the same. --] (]) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Deiz didn't act perfectly here; specifically was a bit out of line, I think. But your reaction overshadows his slight rudeness. Just because someone is rude to you is no reason to stoop to their level. And besides, as far as the original content dispute goes, Deiz was right; it was an incredibly minor piece of trivia which was completely irrelevant to the article. It appears that now the entire section has been removed (rightly, I would say). You seem to have been acting in good faith, so I would just suggest to take this as a learning experience and to remember to remain ] at all times. If someone is uncivil to you, there are ways to deal with it. Answering incivility with incivility will often result in a block. Cheers, ] ] 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Well I'm a big believer of "an eye for an eye", but putting that aside, I doubt that anyone would take any action against and admin who's being rude. Anyway, I think you're dancing around the main issue here, which is that the removal of the content was never about something "useless" or "unsourced", it was about Deiz not wanting anyone to defy his authority. As I stated, the entire "Pop-Culture" section was technically irrelevant, unsourced and I'm sure that Deiz is neither dumb or blind, so he must have known that as well. If he truly believed in the reasons he told me (that my post was irrelevant and unsourced), he would have removed the entire section like Kingboyk did. How can you justify Deiz's action if not tyranny? ] (]) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:I wouldnt exactly say "Deiz probably should not have issued the block (as he was involved in the dispute)," -- I'd say "Deiz certainly absolutely should not have issued the block... " regardless of the bad behavior of the other party. This is about as basic as its gets--any of the rest of us thousand active admins he mighthave asked would have looked at the situation & done it. ''']''' (]) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I won't make this topic any longer than it already is. Everything I just told to faithless applies here as well, but I will add something else. There are rules on Misplaced Pages and they apply for everyone, including mods and admins. Also, like in real life, some rules and crimes have higher importance than others. Personally, I see myself right now as a shoplifter Vs a crooked cop.] (]) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Here's a question. Has there been a longer term pattern of bullying? ] (]) 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
*I agree with much of what has been said above. I could have passed this on, but given the clear, repeated violation of policy after warnings and Duhman "daring" me to call an admin to take action against him - when he had clearly not taken the time to check whether the editor he was shouting at was an admin himself - a 24hr block seemed entirely reasonable. I have been involved in cleaning up / editing this article in the past, but very little recently, and certainly have no conflict of interest with the subject of the article. The 7-11s here don't even sell Slurpees :( Nice to see Linkboyz still has it in for me for no apparent reason. If the unsourced trivia has been removed entirely, I see a victory for ], not for an incivil editor who repeatedly added unsourced trivia. If any offence was taken at my comments (which I admit were direct but imo entirely accurate and certainly not unhelpful) then I humbly apologize, but if Duhman has learned a few things about policy and generally how to go about communicating and editing on Misplaced Pages (sadly not clear from some of the comments above regarding POV when the issue was ], but we can hope) then I'm happy with how things transpired. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:As for you my friend, the only thing I can say for your brilliant acting right there is this: http://i8.tinypic.com/8a055b7.gif ] (]) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Does anyone know anything about ? Can anyone confirm or deny? —] (]) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:Last edit to en.wiki was in October 2006, so I'm not sure how to go about confirming or denying this. The fact that ] posted in January 2008 that she died in May 2007 is raising a red flag for whatever reason. --]] 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Never mind, just noticed that Sangosmom was blocked indefinitely less than 10 minutes before I replied here. --]] 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, but that doesn't necessarily tell us anything since we don't know on what basis that account was blocked. I'll ask the blocking admin to come and comment. --] (]) 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::It was this edit . User evidently does not even know Sango123. I feel the block was valid. If there are any other questions email them please.--] 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::At any rate, I removed the section left on Sango123's user talk page and sent her an email through Special:Emailuser. --]] 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I'd come across the article ] a few days ago and started to fix it up; upon further editing I came to the conclusion that notability per PROF had not been established and that this article (and several reincarnations ], ]) has been a bone of contention among several other editors. It was my intentions to take it to AfD within a week if notability hadn't been established however two editors (both of whom seem to have been previously involved with the article) seem to be determined to ] the article and it has slid into ] issues on their part. Because it has been prod'ed and AfD'ed so many times and I don't feel that the people who have dealt with this before are available to deal with this right now (] I know is one of them..) it needs to be looked at by somebody other than me because quite frankly with the civility issues I'm not sure I'm the best one deal with this. I apologize if this isn't the proper place for this but I know it will be the one to get the fastest results. Thanks. --] 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:Note also that ], the creator of a previous version of this article has engaged in Checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, been blocked more than once for other offenses, and may be back under a new username. ] (]) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Please watchlist ] ==

The article ] has been under long term protection from a very determined sockmaster. A high profile article cannot be long term protected against vandalism. Please add it to your watchlist. This diff highlights a typical edit from the sockpuppet. While it looks like a legitimate content dispute this is a behavior based block. The sockmaster is not willing to discuss the issue, is not willing to abide by 3RR, and is not willing to engage in community editing. The rest of the editors involved have gone over this section of the article multiple times to revise any content issues.

'''These sockpuppets need to be instantly banned the moment they edit, we suspect there are dozens of them pre-baked as semi-protection did not stop them before.''' ] (])
:Please consider making a check-user request at ]. They can determine, and possibly block, the IP address of this sockmaster. ] ] 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, already done. The user is on an ISP that gives dynamic addresses. There would need to be a /18 blocked and that is too collateral. ] (])

Here is the next one: {{vandal|Pufae}}

== Weird Google results on BLPs ==

Is this something Misplaced Pages is going, or something Google is doing? I noticed on some BLP articles, but not all, the text of the article isn't what is appearing in the Google search results, but some other content. For example:

* : "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article about the US Representative for Ohio and presidential candidate."
* : "Open-source encyclopedia article provides personal, business and political information about the President, his policies, and public perceptions and ..."
* : "Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides an extensive personal and political profile of the US Senator for Illinois and candidate for US President."
* : "Growing detailed biography, with links to related topics, a wealth of information. "

But not all BLPs are affected:

* : This is linked off our front page, the current President of Kenya. It doesn't do it for him: "Mwai Kibaki (born November 15, 1931) is the President of Kenya. Kibaki was previously Vice President (1978 - 1988), and has held several other cabinet ..."
* : I went to find the mayor of New Orleans, and found this fellow instead by misspelling his name by mistake: "Ray Nagel attended Los Angeles High School from 1941-1945 and played quarterback for the football team. He was a third team all-city selection his senior ..."

Non-BLP articles don't appear affected (I've yet to find one that is):

* : "This article is about Volvo Group - AB Volvo; Volvo Cars is the luxury car maker owned by Ford Motor Company, using the Volvo Trademark. ..."
* : "McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) is the world's largest chain of fast food restaurants, primarily selling hamburgers, cheeseburgers, chicken products, ..."
* : " Headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA, its best selling products are the Microsoft Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office suite of ..."
* : "The characters that make up Japan's name mean "sun-origin", which is why Japan is sometimes identified as the "Land of the Rising Sun". ..."

It only seems to happen on BLPs, and very inconsistently. If this is us, where and how is this controlled for which articles do or don't do this? Does anyone know what this is? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:This could be a developer attempt to mask vandalism from Google. (I remember specifically an incident a couple months ago where Google crawled a vandalized version of George Washington, causing the first result for all GW searches to be "George Washington is a fucking douchebag".) The four examples you give are often-vandalized articles, so I'd hazard a guess that it's manually implemented into robots.txt based on the level of vandalism. ] ] 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think these come from dmoz. ] ] 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Some of these are obviously from DMOZ. This misfeature of Google can be turned off using META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOODP", but I don't think Misplaced Pages does that. ] (]) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::So, is there a way to correct this? I noticed months ago that the Google result for ] incorrectly summarizes the article as "Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides a personal and political profile of the US Senator for Alabama." (For those outside the US, Kennedy is from Massachusetts) - ] ] 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::::<small>Some of us from outside the USA do know where Mr Kennedy, the well-known motorist, is from!] (]) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small>
:::::<small>"the well-known motorist" - Too funny. - ] ] 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small>
::::Would it require the developers? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I went over to the dmoz site and their feedback system isn't working right now. I'm not sure if this is an issue on our end or theres. - ] ] 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I have used "update listing" at to enter the correct state. It may take a while before a volunteer editor reviews it. ] (]) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It may take until the end of time. Large portions of DMOZ are abandoned wasteland. ] (]) 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Some WR folks noticed this a whle back and came up with an explanation, I will try and find it. ]] 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Here we go: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13014 ]] 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::Viridae! Did you just link to a BADSITE? The minions of Hell shall surely beat down our doors any second...<small>(] not withstanding)</small> - ] ] 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to force Google to update their cache? See Dubya's current cache - it contains the text "IS A COMPLETE DICKHEAD AND THE BIGGEST DICTATOR SINCE HITLER!!!!" That's probably not a good thing. --] (]) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Emailing them usually works. I can't recall who, but when the George Washington cache or summary contained vandalism, an email resolved this situation quickly. - ] ] 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Reconfirmation RfA notice ==

Dear Community, as some of you may know, a thread was started on ] about admins retaining their admin bit after changing names under the Right to Vanish. I am one such admin, this thread mentioned me, and I stated that if anyone wanted me to, I would stand for RfA again. I received a request today, and have honored that request with a reconfirmation RfA ]. Please look at me, not the process, I would like this to proceed with as little drama as possible. This was entirely my decision. Regards to all, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Proposal to change the directory template at the top of this page ==

... a.k.a. ]. The proposed version is ], you can comment on it at ]. ] 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, thanks for ] it here. I had dropped it on the various Misplaced Pages talk: pages, but didn't know if it was important enough to get full billing. Hopefully this will bring more discussion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Do we need a discussion for everything? I've just gone ahead and ]. ]

== So I just got offered money (via email) to edit Misplaced Pages: several offers exists, some posted in WP ==

This has never happened to me before. I guess I should say that I believe the offer was made in "good faith", that is, the editor in question was unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies, was having difficulty adding links to his webpage and creating an article about himself/his company (it was all spam/COI and apparently I reverted/deleted a lot of it) and so decided to offer me money via email to create his article and add his links appropriately. Since I "seem to know my way around" etc.
Of course I refused, citing ] as the relevant policy for both why he shouldn't be doing that and I couldn't take any money for editing article (neverminding my own ethics and the fact that I'd almost certainly be de-sysopped).
Has this happened to anyone else? I know there's been some issues in the past relating to pay-for-editing, but is there an actual policy against it? Just curious mostly and in no danger of going over to the ]. Cheers ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:Paid editing is a ]. I think it is not expressly forbidden because COI editors are still allowed to do things like place comments on talk pages, revert vandalism to own articles and remove ] violations. A ] agent could in theory charge clients to monitor their articles, keep them free of policy violations, and use the talk page to suggest new references. If anyone chooses to do paid editing, I personally think it should be fully disclosed so that the community can ensure propriety.] <sup>]</sup> 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Dina, this practice has been around for some months now i believe. I totally agree with Jehochman re transparency. We should make sure that there is no ] being involved. Please have a look at ]. -- ] - <small>]</small> 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Wow, money! Considering how many hours it takes to write, it's low pay but it's still money! I didn't know that there was a WP board. Someday, WP may be sold. It could get a lot of money. Jimbo is a smart man. I presume he'll get a lot of money and the world will have an encyclopedia. 2 winners! ] (]) 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Jimbo doesn't own Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::::] While I agree with your statement, I am worried that this can be abused. Having a proper disclosure is a must in anything that may be seen as ]. Solicitation of clients via WikiPedia is not advisable. As a notable editor we will be approached by outsiders who will try to influence our edits making this a gray area. WikiPedia is not for Sale ™ and if one comes to edit WikiPedia thinking of a monetary reward, they are very mistaken. Not intended at J. ] (]) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:Out of curiosity, what was the company? Thanks! &nbsp; — ] (]&#124;]) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::While I know Jeff's question was ], it may not be a good idea to out the company. Just a thought. :) ]
:::One thing that companies should be aware of is that Misplaced Pages editors and administrators are under no formal obligation to treat these situations confidentially. We almost always do handle them quietly out of courtesy, but remember that one year ago Microsoft had a major PR debacle when they tried to hire a blogger to edit Misplaced Pages...and instead of accepting the offer the fellow blogged it. The risks of this type of offer far outweigh the advantages. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::While I understand that Misplaced Pages editors are under no obligation to treat such things confidential, and this editor would be well within his/her rights to say whom the company is, I suggest prudence. Perhaps explaining to the person who is offering the money, how things work, and how they don't work would suffice. Then after unwanted persistence, by all means, raise a flag. But let us assume that the company just ''requires a little education''. Just want to be fair, and give a fair chance. You have a point, conversely, so do I. Regards, ]
:::::Oh, absolutely. I suggest it too. I've done a lot to provide that kind of education. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I think I misunderstood you then, but I am glad we agree. :) Best regards, ]

::::::Should we even be talking about this. Posting the name of the company may constitute a violation of ] may even be ] and ]. I would recommend to forget it and move on. But what you do outside of WikiPedia is your business. Just ask John H Gohde and his friend Hate bloger. We deffinetly do not need more ]. ] (]) 04:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Meh - It is ok to discuss here as it may involve mainspace, as it expands our understanding of these things. ]
:::::::Mercury, in that rspect yes, but I just do not like the smell of it, and I am sitting down wind..:) But all I can say is this, if you are a social media consultant and you get an email like this from one of your clients. Asking you to social engineer their article page, I would delete it and would not even bring it up to anyone. I would also stop making business with this client, because they do not understand what SEO is about. Now if you have a client who has an article on WikiPedia and you keep an eye on it as a courtecy with ] in mind, there is nothing wrong with that and it is ]. I am sure ] will concur with me. Beyod this I do not know what to say. ] (]) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, I forgot one important thing, the recent PR downgrade of PPP blogs for not using rel=nofollow, and if our editors would start editing WikiPedia for money than that would need to be disclosed on each article as a PPP or Google will see it as a violation of Google Quality Guidelines, you can ask Matt Cutts about this. ] (]) 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I don't know Durova. People were insisting this would be ] only weeks ago. The company that offered the bribe owns the copyright to the correspondence, etc. etc. Surprisingly, a counter policy to explicitly allowing the sharing such correspondence, ], isn't getting much traction. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Allow me to clarify: my comment addresses the bribe offer, not the medium by which it was conveyed. In my own experience, the vast majority of such offers are extended in good faith ignorance about the ethics and ramifications so they ought to be treated with appropriate discretion. ''Discretion'' implies choice. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't understand how to relate your comment to the topic in the thread. Explain a little? ]
::::::Durova said ''One thing that companies should be aware of is that Misplaced Pages editors and administrators are under no formal obligation to treat these situations confidentially'' however that's rather uncertain, and a proposed policy which would have made sharing this grounds for a ] was only rejected last week, and the proposed policy to permit it, ], will probably be rejected as well; you'd need to have been following ] to understand the context fully. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:Apparently they didn't offer you nearly enough money... ] (]) 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I am not for sale..:) But I would probably make more working at Mc'D than geting paid by some Wipe Ass company to Spam a Wiki. And ]. Time for a siesta! ] (]) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Why does nobody offer to pay me to create articles for them? Bah. Personally, I think the abhorrence of paid editing is mostly jealousy. IMO, if it benefits the encyclopedia, great - I don't mind if people make money out of it. I know I'm jealous. ] ] 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::You are paid in the respect of your peers, a currency far more valuable than money. Especially at the rate the dollar is dropping. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Personal information ==


</div>
{{resolved}} <small>]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small>
</div>
A user gave out a name which is "apparently" mine. I have been the victim of stalking before and am very uncomfortable having a name where I have never given it out. If I provided a diff to an admin, could I have it deleted? This is a deeply personal issue. ] 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:Yes, but I would recommend having an admin delete the diff and then request oversight, so it is invisible to admins as well. I'd be available to perform the deletion if need be. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
::Would you prefer if I posted the diff here or on your talk page? ] 15:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
:::My talk is fine, thanks. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
== "fake move attack" comes back again ==
{{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 ==
*(See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip ] to add information of a fake move ] into ], thanks for giving a hand for this.] (]) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*:I've issued the IP a level 2 warning on introducing deliberate factual errors. That's really about all that can be done, as the issue doesn't appear to be pervasive and ongoing. If it happens again, continue to remove and warn. Once you've issued a level 4 (final) warning, if the IP continues to vandalize, report the user at ] to be blocked for disruption. ] (]) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (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.
:Hmm, this rabbit hole might go deeper yet. I've reverted two of their edits to ] articles (one from over a month ago) for lack of sources. I think more eyes on this IP's contribution history would be called for. —] <small>(])</small> 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::And ] too. —] <small>(])</small> 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
I'm hesitant to post here for fear of causing the oft-feared ], but feel that given the user in question's actions I have been left no choice, with attempted rational discussion on his user talk page having failed several times already. I have been asked to look at {{admin|UtherSRG}}'s use of rollback perhaps half a dozen times or more since Christmas, and have observed messages on his talk page being posted complaining about rollback use in that time. The issue seems to be this - under the guise of ], Uther has been using the rollback utility to revert contributions which do not fall under the criteria for rollback cited in ], where it is indeed called a "slap in the face to a good-faith editor". I would suggest that several users are by now in facial distress. What's the solution? Some sort of consensus either way - is Uther's use of rollback to revert good-faith edits without leaving a note acceptable, or is it not? Once we have that, if further action (strong warning) needs to be taken it can be done. Thanks for your time, ]''']''' 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
:I don't personally see a reason to consider rollback really much of a special tool. To me, it's no big deal- it's just a quickie way of doing something that ANY editor can do. However, reverting good faith contributions without good explanation ''is'' a bit of a problem, whether it was done in one click or not. ] ] 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
::He's a bit snappy at those who come to his talk page looking for explainations--]]] 20:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
:Just a quick look through his contribs and I see many edits like - it's a clear misuse of the tool and is extremely unbecoming of an administrator. A firm warning may all be required this time round, but future misuse should probably result in an RfC. ] 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* : 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''
Oh please folks. There's a discussion going on to give non-admins the rollback feature, and there are apps out there that do the same thing... Look at the number of total edits I make per day (many while at work when I don't have the time to craft an edit summary for each one...). If anything, all I'll do is put "revert" into the edit summary. It's just not feasible to make the number of edits I do and craft an edit summary for each of them. So I invoke ], the one rule that overrides all other rules. - ] ] 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Many of us here, including me, make 1000+ edits per month and still find time to write an edit summary.--]]] 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
:Oh please Uther, Ryan is right. Reverts like need an edit summary, not just a blanket revert. Rollback is an admin tool, even if it is going to be granted to non-admins. Non-admins will need to use the tool properly as well as admins. This is not the end of the world, but you really should not continue using the rollback button outside its intended scope. Also, I don't think you are using IAR properly, I don't see how the rules got in your way, you just didn't bother. ] 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
:Is that supposed to be your satisfactory explanation for misusing rollback? You don't use rollback on good faith edits - it should only be used for reverting things such as vandalism. I urge you to rethink this, because if you carry on misusing one, you're liable to lose them all. ] 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* 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.}}
::Looks like you make ~25 edits a day, that's not a lot. There are plenty of people who edit more and still manage to find the few seconds it takes to type a summary. ] 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* 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.


---
:] is for situations when ignoring a particular rule is paramount to preserving the encyclopedia and preventing disruption. I can't see how ignoring the edit summary rule just because you don't have time to fill it in is doing much for it at all, considering the fact that your unexplained reverts are sure to cause confusion amongst other editors. ''']''' 21:27, 6 January 2008 (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.


::Unexplained reverts are disruptive if the edits reverted are not vandalism. If you do revert with rollback, at least have the courtesy to explain why you did, afterwards. ''']''' ('']'') 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 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)
::(ec) ] states that you should use it '''if a rule prevents you from making a constructive edit'''. I think you just see the title and you start "ignoring all of the rules." I think that you're just using IAR as an excuse for misusing the rollback tool. <font face="Verdana">] ]</font> 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::(Edit conflicted 6 times) Uther: There are many people on Misplaced Pages reverting stuff. You don't need to get X amount of edits per day, and I reckon that many people would find that leaving a good edit summary on all edits (albeit fewer edits that you can fit in) is better than reverting half the encyclopedia with almost no justification. '''<font face="Verdana">] ]&nbsp;]</font>''' 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] above. Please either use an edit summary or stop reverting possibly good faith edits. Thanks! &nbsp; — ] (]&#124;]) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
Since you are all so bent out of shape over this, I'll do what I can to improve my use of edit summaries. - ] ] 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
Enough, you saw what happened today, and it was by one renegade admin, what would happen if the regulars would get this toy? An Apocalypse would fall on WikiPedia. Go back to your edits, and see what you reverting so you can prevent Disaster as it showed its ugly head today. ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:They'd get it removed very very quickly - unfortunately it's not that simple with an admin as he would have to lose all his tools. ] 17:30, 7 January 2008 (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)
:Um... what happened today? - ] ] 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:You got reported to this noticeboard for misuse of rollback.--]]] 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I 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)


::"Today" is probably still true wrt to this discussion in a couple of time zones (and was so in even more when Igor originally posted). ]''']''' 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
In the Spring of 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation released a resolution titled ] regarding the use of non-free media on its projects. Subsequent to this, a huge amount of effort was undertaken to significantly reduce the mass overuse of fair use images across the project. This included removals of fair use images from discographies, episodes lists, and character lists.
* 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=]}}.
Image removals from discographies and episode lists was severely fought on a number of fronts. Ultimately, it was won by the people removing the images, and discographies and episode lists across the project have largely had their images removed. There are few left with such images. The effort to remove images from character lists has run into massive resistance. Frankly, the situation is on a precipice.
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
Right now on ] there is heavy debate regarding this issue. The sheer numbers of people who are involved in that discussion is outweighing the voices of people who have been working in the trenches attempting to bring the project in compliance with the Foundation's resolution, in particular that fair use images must be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works"
{{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)
If nothing is done, if nobody is willing to do anything about this but the few of us who have been working on this, the status quo will be to accept images for depiction purposes only on every character in every fictional universe written about on the project. A case example of this is the use of more than 180 images in 17 lists of characters articles for the Stargate/SG-1 universe. See the various lists linked to from ] and ]. Another case example is ] where the images have been removed several times over the last several days, and an edit war continues on that article. These are ''minor'' characters by the very title of the article, yet the fair use inclusionists insist they are in the right and are very willing to edit war into oblivion to have their way.
::* 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.
By definition, Misplaced Pages is a ] encyclopedia. See ]. We've been one of the greatest projects in the vanguard of free content. It now stands at grave risk from people who absolutely insist we must have fair use used as liberally as possible.
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}
*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
I am begging for your help.
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}


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


--] (]) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC) :Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Do you think the war can be won if you contact the owners of the images and get permission to use them on WikiPedia. I understand you want to uphold the free use, but...? ] (]) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (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)
::I'd agree. If I remember, ] agreed to let us use screenshots of their games on Misplaced Pages. If they've let us use pictures of their games, couldn't we ask other copyrighters to let us use their images? ''''']]]''''' 23:49, 6 January 2008 (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 ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:One would like to remind those who view this as a "war" that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Discussion and consensus are key to our collaborative effort and treating others as the "enemy" in a "fair use war" is really at odds with our overall mission more than the spattering of fair use images are. ] (]) 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground it's an attempt to build a free content ]. The editors putting "free content" before "encyclopaedia" have been advancing their cause with amazing success the last couple years - if any group around here doesn't need help ... ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>edit conflict</small>
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Even if they agreed it would still be a non-free image, from wikipedia policy point of view it is no better than fair-use, there is no advantage in getting the approval of the owner (yes I know this sounds unreal, but read the policy again and you will see that even when the owner authorises the use on wikipedia, it still needs a rationale and non-free license).
::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::As far as all the fan boy stuff goes, I think this is a much bigger problem than them just ignoring the non-free policy. In a recent AfD I started one admin went as far as to say that policy forbade me to nominate an episode article for deletion (lol!). For some reason I don't know why, they really do believe in good faith that the policies don't apply to TV series, video games, comics (...) In the same deletion debate others have said ] and ] do not apply to TV series episodes, and often users say that each episode is notable because the series is notable. So the problem goes deeper than you think, and IMO concerns most policies, with he exception of the most blatant ones such as vandalism, personal attacks etc. ] (]) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::We are reaching a point here on WP where we need strong guidance (more than just consensus) in exactly what levels of contemporay fictional material we are going to want on here. I've been very patiently trying to guide ] through a rewrite and there's opinions on both sides as to which way to go, some feeling we should have full details of such works, and others saying we have way too much and needs to be cut down. TTN's recent arbcom case over TV episodes is just one facet (and somewhat unfortunately that the arbcom didn't state their case either way on the content issue, though understandably why since it was more behavior-based), this images in lists is another. We do have Wikia for that, but people keep bringing up COI and legal concerns with it. I don't know if we need more Foundation/Arbcom guidance, a WP-wide consensus, or what, but something is going to give soon, my gut tells me. --] 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
Hammersoft is unfairly describing the debate. Here is a re-post of what I have asked of all editors:
{{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.


"''Editors on both sides of this debate, you are not allowed to write off everyone else as being image use extremists. Do not treat myself or others as if we completely disagree, or that we would argue for an image for every Pokemon or ewok. I've brought up examples where only a handful of images were being used, for main characters, and still have not heard any rationale on removing them. I've pointed out specifics of the past discussions and why we had them, and what the issues were. I strongly push for limiting non-free images, remove many, and try to educate others about the policies and guidelines. So as hard as it might, realize you are not talking to image use extremists, but are talking to rationale Wikipedians, who have points that are just as reasonable and logical as your own. I know it's a break from the norm, having to repeat ourselves to those who don't understand, but do try.''"


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>
This is a situation that is very different from previous incidents, such as ''Lists of episodes''. Editors such as Betacommand are starting to remove ''any'' and all images from any group character article, even for main characters. There needs to be a clear distinction that some of us are '''not''' defending excessive uses such as . -- ] 00:11, 7 January 2008 (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)
:Also to the people who said "wikipedia is not a battleground" I think that expression was coined more as a goal to achieve, and while there is not war in the first meaning of the word obviously, it doesn't help to pretend edit warring is not going on. Yes consensus is the key, as is sensible conversation, unfortunately I have to agree that often it is more like a war. Some people want to uphold the mission of wikimedia foundation and some people really couldn't care less about it, but just want to promote and display nicely their favourite TV show characters. Neither is bad or good, both have different priorities. ] (]) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I sure as hell am not a user who "couldn't care less" about the mission of Misplaced Pages and the Foundation. This is borderline slander to try to off opposition by linking them with a more extreme group of users. What's next, are you going to call me a Nazi? -- ] 00:50, 7 January 2008 (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 am confused about a couple of things. For instance, does the have the status of ] on Misplaced Pages? Also, the EDP that the Resolution highlights that is relevant to us is ] ... but that is a guideline, which would seem to be quite a problem in light of the current controversy, yes? Note that I'm as ignorant as they come about image-use policy, myself (apologies). --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:The resolution stands above policy: the pages states "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." <sub>→]]</sub> 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::No one is disputing the Foundation policy. -- ] 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::The Foundation used the example of WP's ] as an appropriate EDP, and that itself is policy; (] is wrapped around that, as you may notice). In the current case, it is how ] and ] apply to lists. --] 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, that clears up some of the confusion. Now, there have been changes to ] (>50 edits - ) and ] (>100 edits - ) since ratification of the Resolution. Are we confident that the Misplaced Pages EDP still meets the requirements of the Foundation's Resolution? As part of the controversy resolution, should the Misplaced Pages EDP be 're-approved' so it has the proper and specific stamp of approval of the Foundation? --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (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)
::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] backlog doin' great ==
Framing this debate as a "war" is not helpful in any way. The Foundation encouraged local projects to create a viable ] through consensus and rational consideration of editorial needs, not by favoring absolutist stances based on free content evangelism. Rallying troops to your defense, as it were, is a disingenuous attempt to dismiss rational objections by creating opposing factions. If we are to have any sort of fair use on the project, we must welcome input from content editors as well as image patrollers. Our policy for claiming fair use is already stricter than what is dictated by US law, tightening the yoke in hope of some day eliminating all fair use from the project will only raise tensions.


I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
I'm all for approaches that attempt to limit copyright infringement or liability, as long as we avoid arbitrary limits on "excessive" fair use because of paranoia. If a non-licensed copyrighted image can be replaced by free content, there is sense in deleting it. If this is not an option because any attempt will only create a derivative work, then you have offer editors some discretion in claiming fair use. Take the cue from outside publications that use promotional materials to illustrate their content. Alternately, consider whether the copyright holder would actually object to a content provider using their work. In cases of illustrating pop culture articles, the threshold is usually pretty low. Using cropped screenshots to identify characters or locations is fairly common outside of Misplaced Pages, and is indeed allowed by other free content wikis. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
*Ahem! Talking about "framing this debate as a 'war'" not being helpful, and then immediately framing the debate as "paranoia" in the next paragraph is somewhat self-contradictory, at best. "copyright paranoia" has never been a helpful label, because in part it misses the point made by those who want to reduce non-free content to its minimum that the project goal is to create a free-content encyclopaedia that can be used by anybody in any country. "Outside publications that use promotional materials" do not have the goal of being free-content. Indeed, they are predominantly non-free. Comparison to other projects and publications, with different goals, is a red herring. ''Our'' goal is, and has been pretty much from the start, to create a free-content encyclopaedia. ] (]) 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
**Our ability to create free content is limited because of the extensive and longlasting protections offered to proprietors of intellectual property. So I agree in limitations that force a free content or nothing at all approach where the possibility for creating free content exists. As for how much non-free content is too much, the guidelines are hazy. It is common practice to use samples of up to thirty seconds of a piece of recorded music for fair use claims. Similar guidance is not available for screenshots or other visual content. Several editors are arguing for a conservative reading of non-free content criteria that requires an inflexible limit defined as "excessive fair use". While I was a bit hasty in characterizing this position as paranoid, it does require an insular view of editorial consideration in illustrating articles. For instance, the claim that album covers should not be used in discographies because many non-free images will occupy a tight-nit space is absurd. Online and print publications routinely use galleries of album covers to chart musical careers.
**Ultimately we have to accept that the goal of crafting an general encyclopedia necessitates use of non-free content for purposes of illustration and criticism. The alternate approach is to completely abolish the exemption policy and depend wholly on free content. This position holds some merit, but users must be direct if they wish to advocate in favor of it. Gradually limiting fair use claims with the goal of eliminating non-free content is a dishonest approach. I'm not saying that this is the position of everyone who advocates for stricter standards, but this is why framing the debate strictly from a free content point of view is unfair. I don't think the creation of free content and taking advantage of fair use laws are mutually exclusive. We have many wonderful articles that depend on non-free content for educational purposes. Hammersoft's post was a dramatic plea that sought to turn our appreciation of free content against the purportedly destructive views of a large number of pop culture editors. Of course this ignores the fact that those editors are well within their right in demanding to have a say in crafting the exemption policy required by the Foundation. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 13:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to join ]. I have contacted several media outlets, but so far I have been unsuccessful (I am much more successful when contacting Flickr users, even professional photographers, though). That is why I asked candidates for the Board if they would help us contacting media representatives (], asked the same question to everyone else), but I guess that will never happen (you know, never trust politician on campaign). Jimbo himself would have supported a press release to media outlets (discographies, agencies, etc), but it was never created (mostly because I can't redact a serious request, and not many were interested in that). We have negotiation power, but prefer to stay the way we are unfortunately. -- ] (]) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Call for mentors ==
* LOcal policy cannot override foundation policy, if people think the local policy is no longer in line with foundation policy they probably need to take it up with Florence and/or Jimbo. That's the only thing likely to stop te silliness, IMO. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:*The problem is clearly that we're well within what's allowed by the foundation resolution - we could accept nonfree media more liberally and still be within it ... but we're also allowed to be as conservative as we like (within the realm of possibility, obviously we can't go past zero fair use) ... so we're stuck here, trying to work it out for ourselves ... The foundation could never out and out outlaw fair use (for example, wikiquote would be royally screwed) ... ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
War? good to know. Just leaving a comment here because sometimes I search for things that way. Carry on then. ] (]) 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:More like vigilante self-appointed Judge Dredds playing a bureaucratic MUD, often against miscreants who've added unnecessary or illicit images, but getting into wars against productive contributors who've made serious good faith efforts to comply fully with the policy and in particular with the EDP. Where criteria of the EDP are subjective, local consensus is essential, and treating it as a war fought by elite picture police is disruptive. We could all spend our lives joining policy debates and immersed in projects, and only touch on a fraction of those available. For most editors, the essential is that policy stays stable enough to make contributing constructive work possible. Anyway, back to the trenches ;) .. ], ] 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I know nothing about this issue, but since the term "war" is being used I will say that wars are usually won by those who want to win the most and/or who have the greater numbers unless those with superior power apply crushing force to have their way (assuming those with less power are the ones who want to win the most and/or who have the greater numbers). My feeling, as one who knows nothing about the issue, is that Misplaced Pages core principles and general mentality preclude the application of such crushing force which brings me back to the theory that the side with the greatest numbers and most passion will likely win most "wars". Is some form of negotiated cease fire possible to give you time to regroup? Or could the issue be diverted into ArbCom? The tone and content right here does indicate that the "sheer numbers" are taking over so if it were me, I'd try to buy some time. ] (]) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::*ArbCom does not handle matters like this. I agree with your summary; the weight of the fair use inclusionists outweighs the weight of people trying to uphold the core principles of the project. If it keeps up, album covers will go back on discographies, episode screenshots will go back on episode lists, and fair use images of living people will creep back into BLPs. Count on it. --] (]) 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*Naw, the "must not be replacable with a real or hypothetically createable free image point is wedged in there with glue or something, it's not coming out. Album covers on discographies and episode screenshots in episode ''lists'' are not really in any danger of occuring (although obviously a lot of this debate concerns what is, or isn't, a list). The sky continues to fall up, and it'll be harder to add a fair use image to an article tommorow than it is today, which is harder than it was yesterday. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
Please can I ask as many admins as possible to contribute to ''']'''. We need to choose which automated deletion reason tool to use (we have recently had a couple of differnet versions), and this is only possible by having the people that use the tool to take part in discussion. ] 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
:Is it going to break twinkle or stop me from manually entering a reason when I want to? --] (]) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::Suggestion - have it blank by default and only let the delete button work once text has been manually put into the deletion summary. Or would that cause problems by requiring the careful deletion of content? ] ] 10:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Requiring that it only work if somebody first puts their own summary into the box tends to defeat the purpose. The summaries provided within ^demon's script, which I use, are more than adequate; especially for user requests, deletion of commons images, and bad redirects. Some deletions don't require anything more than the standard summary...it has nothing to do with the careful deletion of content. - ] ] 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Resigning adminship == == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
Hello, all. I plan to leave Misplaced Pages soon, and I was wondering how to go about resigning from my administrator position. That way, if the abandoned account ever gets hijacked, the hacker won't be able to do much damage. Thanks for any help! — ] (]) 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:]. Sorry to see you go. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::Me too. If you ever feel like coming back, you can always ask for it again. ''''']]]''''' 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Just not under a new name, even if you are just renamed, unless you want to inspire a massive... Ok I will stop now. Good luck with life. <tt>:)</tt> <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Don't give him ideas. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Goodbye. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the link, Keilana (and thanks for the well wishes from the rest of you). Does the English Misplaced Pages not have its own permissions procedure, though? — ] (]) 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Not for de-sysopping. That's a meta job, and one for a steward. Best of luck, wherever you go. Thanks for putting in all the hard work here over the years and, needless to say, you'll be very welcome back :) - ] <sup>]</sup> 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:: There are no stewards on enwiki, and it takes a steward to desysyop. (There are some users on enwiki who are also stewards on Meta, though.) That's why the request has to be made on Meta. --] 11:03, 7 January 2008 (]]])


(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)
== CobraGeek ==


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Please would someone check this person's userpage and history of edits/writing and do something about an obvious POV agenda to do nothing but smear USC athletics in every article he can find on Wiki. This is not the forum for someone's campaign of hatred of a rival school. Thank you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* '''(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 ==
Also if an admin could give some attention to the deletion of an attack article (http://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal) written by CobraGeek and linked to numerous other Wiki articles, it would be appreciated. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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)
Okay, getting tired of this already. User:Igorberger is removing the deletion template from the article and has taken a nasty tone with me on my talk page about doing so. Help? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You can place <nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki> on your talk page and a clerk will come to you. ] (]) 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:PLease block ] he is a Black Hat hacker. ] (]) 09:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Deleted contributions request ==
Just because you can't seem to follow Wiki procedure doesn't mean you can label those who do however you like. Don't remove the deletion template on that article again, I have followed Wiki rules, a discussion is started on the talk page. The decision does not belong to YOU. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{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)
Okay, User:Igor Berger just violated 3RR by removing deletion template for the 3rd time in a row. Please take action against this out-of-control user. I am restoring the template per Wiki rules, there is a discussion started on the article talk page. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
:This ] is a ] I am going to buy cigs..:) ] (]) 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I created the AfD for this user, although frankly I don't understand his reasons at all. ] (]) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Just take a look at the creator's (CobraGeek) userpage and I think the reasons will become pretty clear. Or are attack articles welcome at Wiki now? Because I can certainly sign up and write my own in response. Is that the direction Wiki needs to head? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{abot}}
:I see, you are an admin and you have been royally Trolled by cabal... Is your face still red, because when we finish with you it will be white. ] (]) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
Removing other editor's comment' cool, Mr. 65. And from what I can figure out, this looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and as such does not really belong here. Use ], instead. ] (]) 09:47, 7 January 2008 (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)
:Considering the language used, it does certainly belong here. (or AN/I) It's not a dispute over content--its a determined attack by one WPedian on another. I'd support a block for the IP editor. And I'd suggest to CobraGeek that the links on his user page might not be appropriate there, for they do indicate an intention to use POV editing. ''']''' (]) 11:41, 7 January 2008 (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>
:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
== {{ipuser|24.6.182.186}} ==


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)
Can someone intervene here? {{ipuser|24.6.182.186}} has been tag-warring ], by renaming the "Outside references" section to "Trivia" and tagging it with {{tl|Trivia}} (). Since the section is not general trivia at all, but specifically deals with real-world references, the renaming is completely unwarranted. I tried it to the editor, but get no response. Judging form the edit history (placing Trivia tags on his first dozen edits), it is not a new user. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:56, 7 January 2008 (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)
:Seems like a content dispute, and edit warring between an admin and an anon. I've left them both notes reminding them of ] (see and ). I personally think it could be called Trivia, as that is what it looks like to me. - ] (]) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Hide this racist edit. ==
::I've stopped reverting and came here, so the comment was unnecessary. And there is a difference in what it looks like and what it actually is. Point is, the anon doesn't seem to know how to communicate, and I even suspect it may be a sock; why else would an anon (seemingly static) IP start placing Trivia tags out of the blue? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::You post that and then you . I don't know what to say here, other than apparently admins are allowed to revert war, even though the rest of us are not, and are blocked for doing so. 3RR even says that you dont have to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours to be blocked, and now you've reverted ... ... ... times in <u>less than</u> 48 hours, but since you are an admin, that is okay!!?? Sorry for sarcasm, but this just doesn't seem right. - ] (]) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== New Tool ==


: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)
After many many many hours and countless failed attempts I have figured out cgi web interface coding and have adapted BCBots image checking into a basic interface, its at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/cgi-bin/check?&file= just add a image name to the end of that URL, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/cgi-bin/check?&file=Image:Barrybigbands.jpg is an example. Im going to be writing more tools now. I do take request too. ] 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Bravo!. Many thanks, this is an awesome tool that should help many users check their images. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) :Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::Do you log the queries and make your bot tag the bad ones ? ] (]) 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
== ] / ] ==
{{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):
Apologies for the spam, but there hadn't been a proper Look At This post on AN or ANI. It was on VPP and the CENT template, however, and spawned out of a thread on AN last week. Please review and help out at:


*
''']'''
*


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)
Posting here, as it would obviously require some administrative support, as it involves protected pages. Basic initial idea work is now done, and the (surprisingly basic) technical Mediawiki work as well. Please review it, and weigh in on Talk there, so we can see if the idea has proper legs. Thanks! :) <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

Latest revision as of 16:04, 9 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 22 22 44
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 5 12
    RfD 0 0 39 12 51
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

    Request removal of PMR/Rollback

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

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

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

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

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

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

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

    User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

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

    Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emoji redirect

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

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

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

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

    Topic ban appeal

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

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

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

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

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

    Andra Febrian report

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

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

    Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

    Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

    Cannot draftify page

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

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

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

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

    Remove PCR flag

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

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

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

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

    "The Testifier" report

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

    Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

    repost from archive:

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

    Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

    References

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

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

    Heritage Foundation

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

    Deleted contributions request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

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

    I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hide this racist edit.

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

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

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

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

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

    Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

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

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

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