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 20:25, 11 January 2008 view sourceKusma (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators59,687 edits →Foundation, decision and tea cup: thank you← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:12, 8 January 2025 view source Rsjaffe (talk | contribs)Administrators55,852 edits →An inappropriate template being added to many pages: unclose to give opportunity to respond 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<div align="center">{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}</div>
|algo = old(7d)
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
|counter = 368
{{User:MercuryBot/config
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|counter = 120
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|algo = old(48h)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|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. -->
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->


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


--><noinclude>
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.


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


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
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)


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
::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.''
{{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 ].
::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.


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


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


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
::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>


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.
::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-->


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.
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.


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.
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.


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?
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.


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
;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 ]).


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


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


== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
;Conclusion
{{atop
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.
| status = Venue corrected


| result = Now at ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:You should report this at ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. ] (]) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Unclear policy ==
: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:
{{atop
:* ''"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.
| result = Asked and answered. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:* ''"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)


If an RfC about ''policy'' -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.
:::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)


For disclosure this is about ] on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and ], about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how ''absolutely wild'' it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, ''']''', and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.
::::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)


I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. ] (]) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (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.
:I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. ] (]) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.
::This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of ] (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously ''so'' important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (]). ] (]) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.
:::There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. ] (]) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? ]] 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think you should move this complaint to ]. You will get better response there. ] (]) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think {{U|Liz}}'s comments are spot on.--] (]) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
::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.


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)
::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.
:] 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)
::<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?''
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Personal attacks by ] ==
::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>
{{Atop|The OP needs to let go and move on.--] (]) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}


I was to report this here.
::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.


The editor in question: {{Userlinks|Remsense}}
::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)


* Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of ].
:::::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)
* Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of ].
* Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of ].
* Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of ] and ].
] (]) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:@2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at ] (]) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per ]. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::(For the record, I will not be participating in any ] process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:You were ''not'' instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". ] (]) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
: IP, just ]. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you ] per ], as you haven't shown ''sanctionable and repeated'' misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


{{reply to|Johnuniq}} {{tqi|After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here.}} What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at ] was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.
::::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)


{{tqi|If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute.}} For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?
:::::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)


{{reply to|Phil Bridger}} {{tqi|You were not instructed to report this here.}} Yes I was. {{tqi|The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if".}} And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.
::::::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)


{{reply to|Codename_AD}} {{tqi|DROPTHESTICK}} The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.
;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)


{{tqi|you haven't shown ''sanctionable'' and ''repeated'' misconduct on your diffs}} Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. ] (]) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (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.


With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.
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.


Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? ] (]) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
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.


*'''Blocked'''. For the disruption and personal attacks above and at ], I have blocked 2001:569:7FEA:2900:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Pinging {{u|Johnuniq}}: will blocking this /64 do it, John? ] &#124; ] 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC).
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)
*:{{re|Bishonen}} My provider gives me /56 and leases of /48 are not unheard of at other providers. ] (]) 01:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I haven't even given anyone a reason to like me that much, so this kind of result only makes sense if I'm demonstrably the duller thorn in the community's side. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::If anything new turns up, let me or Bishonen know. I am closing this now. ] (]) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Happy New Year! ==
: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)
{{atop|result=Happy New Year to all editors on this project! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. <small>Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do.</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! ] (]) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
: Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. ] ] 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


{{abot}}
::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.


== RM completion request ==
::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)
{{atop
| result = Done —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Please carry out the moves at ]. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
If either of you feel the need, I'm in. Be ]. ] (]) 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Doing... ] (]) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::And done. ] (]) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] ==
:::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.
{{atop
| result = Done —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, ] (]) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now.<span id="Masem:1735741442015:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
{{abot}}


== an obstacle to translation ==
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)
{{Atop|This does not require administrator intervention.--] (]) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}


I was going to translate the article ] into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (])of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. ] (]) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Clarification: Nothing I said above was intended to mean that either of the users mentioned had violated any policies or guidelines. --] (]) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Incivility at ] ==
: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)


@] 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)
== Inappropriate block ==


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
: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)
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:All agree block was not properly thought through, therefore situation is resolved. ]] 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::{{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)
::All agree block was not properly thought through, therefore situation is resolved. ]] 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
----
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->
:::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)
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.


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


== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
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)
{{atop
::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)
| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (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)
: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)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (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)
{{abot}}
::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)
::It strikes me as grossly inappropriate to block someone for "edit warring" when (a) you're the other primary party in the dispute, and (b) ''you've made more reverts than they have''. If the block is really that appropriate, it shouldn't be a problem to get it implemented by a neutral admin who doesn't have a blatant conflict of interest. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
So is this it, is this the end of the discussion? Should I take it that when an admin gets in s scandal, no one talks about it? ] (]) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:So what do you want? A public hanging? The block was inappropriate, there seems to be an agreement that it was inappropriate, and I doubt Deiz will repeat such an action. We don't punish people, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. - ] ] 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
::As I stated multiple times, it's not about the blocking, it's about power abusage (please read my previous statements as this topic is large enough as it is). Also, I don't know about you, but banning and blocking people sure sounds like punishments to me. Did you mean "we don't punish admins"? ] (]) 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
:::No, I did not mean "we don't punish admin" and if you think blocks are placed as punishment, I suggest you reread our ]. Blocks and bans are only placed to prevent further disruption/damage to the project. They should never be placed in a punitive manner. I do not believe Deiz intentionally abused the blocking function, but it was a poor decision. There's really just nothing more to it (and nothing more than needs to be done). - ] ] 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Lol, that's what the juridical system says when they send someone to jail (replace project with society). Jokes aside, I still think that people here are avoiding the main topic on purpose here. I guess I have no choice but to talk about it one more time and expend this topic. When removing my post, Deiz kept stating that my content was unsourced and useless when in fact, the entire Pop-Culture section of 7-Eleven was unsourced and useless. So again, what justifies Deiz actions of removing my content and stating that it was unsourced and useless when it was clear as day that the entire section was unsourced and useless? You don't get to be an admin by being blind or stupid, so I'm 100% that Deiz knew that, so that leaves us only with one possibility, tyranny. ] (]) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (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)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
::{{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)
{{abot}}


== Fair use war being lost == == Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
{{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 ==
Administrators,
{{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 ===
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.
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.
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.
– 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.
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"
– 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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 am begging for your help.


6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
Please.


=== Context ===
--] (]) 23:33, 6 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==
: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)
] 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>
::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)
: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)
: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)


: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)
<small>edit conflict</small>
::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)
:::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).
:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
::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)
:*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).
:::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)
:*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)
Hammersoft is unfairly describing the debate. Here is a re-post of what I have asked of all editors:


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)
"''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.''"
{{abot}}


== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
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)
{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 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 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.
::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)


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.
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)


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


] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
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.


: 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'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)
: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)
*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)
::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)
**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.
{{abot}}
**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)


== Emoji redirect ==
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)
{{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)
* 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)
{{abot}}
:*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)
::::Scaremongering will not help your cause Hammersoft, what is there to suggest that fair use images will find their way back into BLPs apart from in unique/extenuating circumstances? There's a league of difference between a barebones list such as ] and an article such as ], a difference that you ignore in all your arguments. - ]]] 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


== Topic ban appeal ==
*One of the problems here is how to define "excessive fair use" and the impact of any excessive fair use. Should this be assessed on an article by article basis (ie. justifying each use of an image as we currently do)? Should it be done by considering topics (ie. from the point of view of the copyright holder of a particular fictional universe - considering the Misplaced Pages pages combined to create a specialised guide to that fictional universe)? Should it be done by considering Misplaced Pages as a whole (the ] and distributability concerns)? It is possible that if you consider Misplaced Pages as a whole, the vast majority of articles (about living people, long-dead people, and places) will have free images on them. The amount of Misplaced Pages's content that involves contemporary fictional material (and hence involves fair-use) may in fact be fairly small when compared to the whole of Misplaced Pages. That might mean that fair-use is not, on the largest scales, excessive. Of course, from the view of a copyright holder, the use of their copyrighted material might be considered excessive within a topic area, but that shouldn't affect distributability as in the long-run that sort of thing can be cleanly excised from the encyclopedia if need be, either by identifying and filtering topic areas that are "contaminated" by excessive fair use, or by filtering by the non-free tags on images. ] (]) 02:36, 8 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)
:Fair use necessity is defined by comprehension. If something helps the reader comprehend the subject, it's apt.


: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)
:I'm tired of copyright paranoia. All my featured articles except Frank Klepacki are now cheapened because they can't appear on the main page with an image. Why? Because ] decided without a discussion or policy ruling that copyrighted images can't appear on the main page because this encyclopedia is about "free content", and like ignorant sheep editors followed his decision without complaint. Misplaced Pages is an ''encyclopedia''. It covers ''the entire world''.
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
:Fine. Let's go completely free content. After all, the only topics humans should be interested in are ], ]s, and ]s. Let's just pretend that copyrighted works don't exist, and that the fair use provision only allows one image per every 10,000 articles. I wouldn't count out such a proposal from this sick attitude of paranoia. Editors who write about copyrighted works are virtually punished because of it. ] (]) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Woah, what a mess... is it even possible to try and draw a neutral line here? both sides are being extremist towards their points, on one hand there is a group that says the other is trying to use FU images 'freely' and on the other hand there is the one saying the other wants to 'ban' images from character lists, is there a way we can build a consensus to deal with this? something like allowing a image per "x" number of bytes? - ] 02:53, 8 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)
:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
::There is an attempt to middle-ground this, at ]. I'm involved, so I'm not impartial, but while those that want to maintain limited free use are will to move to a less extreme position, when it comes to other situations, ''my feeling'' (not necessarily fact) is there are some that refuse to remove from any less than one image per character on a page. An image every "x" bytes really isn't practical since it can be gamed (invis comments, full HTML text instead of wikimarkup, lots of 50 cent words); you're feel to provide more input though to help resolve the issue. --] 03:08, 8 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 ===
*Once again, the overwhelming majority of fair use concerns seem to surround popular culture articles (especially TV shows and movies). As I have said several times before, this highlights the need for a separate popular culture Wiki with a lower inclusion threshold. The reason you're seeing a lot of pushback is that a lot of people worked on these articles and care about them. If they could be moved to a different Wiki without being deleted, this would defuse many of the problems. Our policies on fair use are much more stringent than required by U.S. law, due to the Foundation's understandable commitment to free content. A popular culture Wiki could allow more of what we consider "fancruft," such as writing articles from primary sources alone, and could allow the inclusion of trivia sections, memes, and other things that aren't really encyclopedic but that a lot of fans obviously care about. ] 07:49, 8 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/>
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
**Best idea I've seen so far. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
{{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 ==
: That approach doesn't exactly help those of us who want the proper encyclopedic coverage of the "popular culture" class of articles - devoid of fancruft, unnotable subjects and meaningless trivia - regardless of the fair usage debate. Fans are already free to make use of the hundreds of Wikia projects out there which basically cover every popular culture topic out there, many consisting of the fancrufty primary source-driven styles you talk of. We don't need to split Misplaced Pages in two simply to sort out an image fair use debate. I haven't a clue who said this, but the quote "That's like going after a fly with a bazooka" is my view on that. -- ] (]) 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:: Maybe not, but that approach does explain a large share of the hostility towards fair-use/non-free images: those against them cannot conceive of any reason to use them except to illustrate Yet Another Borderline Notable Article about The Simpsons or Family Guy. (And yes, I have seen individuals on the anti-fair use side dismiss the use of corporate & team logos as "mere decoration".) A large proportion of the visual elements of contemporary culture -- be it high, low, pop or folk culture -- is burdened with restrictive licenses, & until either this fact is accepted or a universal concesus emerges that Misplaced Pages will exclude all subjects with this encumbrance, this dispute will continue to drag on. -- ] (]) 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's not ''just'' about fair use. It's also about what is commonly known as "fancruft," about trivia sections, and about the writing of articles using only primary sources. All of these things are areas where modern popular culture clashes with the rest of the encyclopedia. Modern popular culture is a very important phenomenon and there are a lot of people who want to catalog their favorite parts of it &mdash; but much of this cataloging just doesn't fit well with Misplaced Pages's policies. Sure, there are other wikis, but we need one that is large and comprehensive enough that people don't feel that they are being blown off. A good start would be to transwiki all of the pop-culture articles from Misplaced Pages, and, if possible, those from other fandom Wikis as well. Then encourage everyone to work from there. I think this is the only solution to maintain Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic standards while still providing a repository for important aspects of modern culture. We can then tell users: "Misplaced Pages focuses on describing the most prominent pop-culture topics from an external, encyclopedic perspective, devoid of trivia. If you want to discuss these subjects from an in-universe perspective, Popculturepedia (or whatever) is the way to go." ] 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::(EC reply to Llywrch) It's not in dispute that, in most cases of contemporary visual elements, copyright applies and a free content license is not present. I think everyone accepts that. However, accepting that, since we're a free content project, and such elements are not free content, we should not, generally speaking, be using them. (Including corporate and team logos.) There may be some exceptions (such as when a corporate or team logo itself is the subject of critical, sourced commentary), but generally, they really ''are'' just decorations. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::: We are a free '''encyclopedia'''. Unless you want to pretend all information that is only available through content encumbered with licenses does not exist (or is not notable), we will need to use content under "fair use". Which means there will be some, & based on the opinions voiced in this thread, this means too much for some people. I don't know what to say to people who don't want ''any'' fair use content, other than your vision of a 💕 is not truly free nor an encyclopedia. -- ] (]) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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


== "The Testifier" report ==
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)
:Is it going to break twinkle or stop me from manually entering a reason when I want to? --] (]) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (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)
There is now a related discussion at the page above about whether we should re-enable the automatic deletion summary (I guess deleting or reverting ] and ] would do the trick). Some people claim that poor deletion summaries including disparaging content are a common problem. Is there any evidence that this? can't be solved by educating a few people to be more careful with their sysop tools? ] (]) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
== Tor nodes ==
{{atop
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting ] in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is ]. Regards, ]


:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Can someone knowledge add this gadget to the gadgets menu? ==
::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
<nowiki>importScript('Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs');</nowiki>


] from the past month (December 2024).
All this does is make it so their are 6 tabs at the top, Article/edit/hist Talk/edit/Hist. I tried looking for a way to install it, but couldn't figure out how. ] (]) 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
:Doesn't a Developer (or somebody special) have to do this? - ] (]) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
::No, admins can add them (I think). See ]. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:] ]
:Eh ? Pretty sure you would need a developer to modify the basic monobook file for everyone. However any user can add this script for themselves, just link to it in your monobook.js no need to be an admin. Just add the bolded text to ]: '''importScript('Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs');'''. You might want to save a copy of ] into your userspace though first up to you. ] (]) 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
:I'm guessing now this probably wasn't your question, I thought maybe you were a new user. I don't even know what the "gadget menu" is lol, sorry if the explanation above wasn't what you wanted. ] (]) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
|]
::The Gadgets tab can be found on your ] page. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Someone delete ], please. ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
I know that ] recommends against requesting specific admins to check specific AfD discussions.
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


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


</div>
The AfD tag has been up for over six days now () and if you look at ], you'll find there's a strong (if not universal) consensus to get rid of the article. Furthermore, for anyone worried about ], the issue has been addressed, because the content has been merged into the main article on ]. See ].
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Despite the recommendations of ], I thought I'd just try and ]. If there's a better way to do this than posting here, let me know. ] (]) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
:Was the content merged actually from the article to be deleted? It doesn't look like it, but if it is, it should not be deleted but simply redirected to maintain the edit history. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
::See the discussion, please. ] should not be "redirected." ] (]) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
] '''Technical news'''
:::If it was patent nonsense, why was it merged into the main article? If an article is merged into another article, the merged article is redirected to the main article so that the history of the merged article is preserved. This is done so that the content remains attributed to the original authors per the requirements of the ]. - ] ] 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
* 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.
::Because while the ''article'' was ], the ''term'' is not. Please see the discussion. ] (]) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You may wish to reread that patent nonsense link you've provided, as the article ]. I don't close deletion discussions, but the proper close in this situation is '''redirect'''. Discussion doesn't override the requirements of our license (]). - ] ] 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To roughly paraphrase the article: '''"dude theres like this certain kinda weed, maaaaan, its called chocolate thai... i heard the made it in teh 80's in thailand... it ''looks'' like chocolate.. it ''smells'' like chocolate, and it ''tastes'' like chocolate. no kidding, dude, i saw it on teh internets, lol!11"''' is ], no matter how any radical ] would like to spin things, otherwise, in order to ''preserve misinformation.'' The fact that the article has existed for this long and failed the first AfD is embarassing. Let's just get rid it, please? After all, in the AfD, there appears to be consensus to do so and the five days of discussion has since gone by. I'm just waiting for any good admin to please come along and delete the article, per Misplaced Pages policy. A redirect would only be called for if there was at least ''one'' person on there making a genuine argument calling for it. There isn't. ] (]) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:You seem to be reading a different article than . Any admin who closes this debate as '''delete and merge''' needs a good strong reminder that we do not do that. You don't seem to be grasping this point. - ] ] 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::How hard is it to answer the question I asked at the start of this thread? Was any content from any revision of the ] article moved to the ] article? If so, it should not be deleted so we can retain the edit history. If not, it wasn't really a merge and it can be deleted. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, it was merged. See by Zenwhat and his/her comment . - ] ] 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I do not know if we taking about same same but different..:) But we called it chocalate brick, which is ] not ] which is ] but both are from ]. ] or stick is ]..:) Dudes dont blow smoke up Siam...Kapaun Krab, Same Same but Different! (Actually it is a brick not a stick!) ] (]) 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::You must be thinking ] == ] which is dark brown...but today who knows..:) ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::So maybe one of you canibals can fix it to reflect ] and put a suck into the dapartment of misinformation DoM! ] (]) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::I've smoked cannabis recreationally before, which is why I have somewhat of an experience with this matter, and have heard of the term before. Cannabis, being illegal (so not subject to consumer review or civil law) is subject to widespread misinformation and ]. Claims about "blueberry" and "chocolate thai" appear to be nothing more than a combination of urban legend, along with fraudulent drug-dealers making false claims about their cannabis to justify jacking up the price. You hear stoners put forth all kinds of absurd claims, such as the existence of the legendary chocolate and blueberry-flavored marijuana, where they treat it like the ]. No one has any hard evidence this stuff exists, but oh ''everyone'' claims to have seen it at least once. This appears to be partially a desire to pass themselves off as "veteran" potheads and partially ] for being de-frauded.


] '''Arbitration'''
::So far, I've never seen the stuff myself, haven't been able to get it, though I've certainly known dealers who tried to lie about having it, and the only "proof" of it is sources on the internet of stoners talking about it. Per ], this article is a clean-cut case of where it's ] that needs to be removed, which is what made me surprised to see the first AfD fail due to "lack of consensus." But Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. This is why it somewhat upset me to see ], an admin on Polish Misplaced Pages, argue with me over it so much. Eventually, we compromised and she somewhat came around to my side because the sources she used were unverifiable and ''demonstratably'' unreliable (See our debate ] and ]). Despite passing the five days, though, and having consensus, the article still hasn't been deleted. This made me extremely skeptical of Misplaced Pages's ability to remove misinformation, so I posted the matter here, hoping that some brave deletionist admin would have the common sense to ]. ] (]) 05:36, 9 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}}.
:::Must be some dealer on a Mayhem mission chasing ] or just being a Dick.. time to dev/nul ] (]) 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
* Merge ends with redirect, no admin action required. Consensus seems to support doing just that, so why not simply do the needful? It's unlikely to be challenged. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::]. Chocolate Thai is an obscure slang term for an urban legend, not a synonym for ], such that a redirect seems inappropriate. Those proposing merge seemed to mean merge/delete, not merge/redirect. In a manner of months, ] will be back precisely because mobs of stoners vandalize Misplaced Pages like ]. ] (]) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::And it's now officially closed, merged, and redirected. - ] ] 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== OK, Now I Really do Smell a Conspiracy ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:{{{1|}}}|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::{{{1}}}
---- ----
{{center|{{flatlist|
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->
* ]

* ]
At first, I was thinking that I wasn't describing the situation clearly, but now I know that people are purposely avoiding the main topic here that an admin removed my content in the 7-Eleven out tyranny and not for the good of Misplaced Pages. Deiz did not want anyone defying his authority and now, the topic got archived because I was revealing the truth? Oh and please, leave my 24h blocking out of this, I really don't care about that, I made it clear multiple times. ] (]) 04:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
* ]
:Wether he removes all the trivia or just part of it is not part of some conspiracy, plot or plan. Its an editorial decision that he made, and that someone else can un-make, discuss or revert. This is not an issue for this board, it does not require admin intervention. Take up the issue on the articles talkpage. ]] 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
}}}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
<!--

-->{{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 -->

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. ] is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at ] and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.

All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Misplaced Pages, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued. The Committee also asks that any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Misplaced Pages, be reported to them immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I am pleased to announce that rollback is now available to non-admins, and can be requested at the above page. I suggest admins watchlist it, and use ] to give rollback. Thanks. ''']''' ('']'') 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I'm not giving anyone rollback unless he or she has brought at least one article up to featured status. And I've got some other RfR criteria waiting in the wings... -- ''']''' 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Wait, what? There was consensus for this implementation of the policy? --] (]) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::There isn't, but the developers seem to be taking policy making into their own hands. ] (]) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think that there was a consensus against it either. ] (]) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Except that policies need consensus for implementation. ] (]) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::it all depends on what you call consensus 51% in favor could be considered consensus depending on how you look at it. Id say 2 to 1 is consensus. ] 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, since there is no policy, and we are making it up as we like. I will remove rollback from any use who has not created a Featured Article, or the request of any FA writer.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:There must be abuse from the account, i.e. it being used in edit wars. ] 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Rollback and featured articles are practically mutually exclusive. Bad idea. ] 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::I fail to see a connexion between contributing to a Featured Article, and the ability to sensibly use an editing tool. ] (]) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


:: why do normal users ''need'' rollback? the page talks about other methods being less effective - but I don't under the gain I get from pressing a rollback button than using any number of scripts? (which is how I currently do it). --] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::(ec)Scripts can be very daunting to those of us who see a computer as a black box. A lack of confidence in using scripts should not disable an editor from effective editing. ] (]) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: that's why I got someone at the helpdesk to install mine! I just hit the buttons! :) --] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding or removing rollback in a disruptive manner will likely be cause for desysopping. The criteria is still evolving, but use your best judgment and lets avoid using the ability to grant/remove the status to make points. You wouldn't block someone for having failed to write an FA in your prefered time period, don't remove rollback from them either. This is an anti-vandalism tool - it should be given to users who will make good use of it. It is not a status symbol. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:There doesn't seem to be any criteria given how fast the right is being granted after a request is made. Take a look for yourself...] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::We're giving it to people who we know we can trust. The people I've granted it to I know from previous interaction and with a quick check of their contribs, I grant it. This isn't RfA - we don't need days of !voting. ] 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::No one's asking for an RFA-like vote (of course), but it takes more than (in at least one case) 2 minutes to go through someones contribs. ] (]) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this tool, or for any particular policy. It was imposed by someone's coup. I opposed this on grounds of more process and I will continue to ignore any rules or process concerning it, until there is demonstrated a consensus. No, I won't disrupt wikipedia, but the enabling of this without consensus and with no agreed policy for its use is horrendously disruptive.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:1) There was consensus (well in some peoples eyes). 2) Use common sense - you partly opposed it for bureaucratic reasons - don't start creating them now. ] 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::1) There was only consensus in the eyes of the supporters. 2) I opposed it because bureaucracy was inevitable - and it still is. Just wait until the first dispute as to granting it, and you will see.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::So all it takes for something to become policy is for there to appear to be consensus in some peoples eyes? ] (]) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Silly question: what happens if an admin is added to the group? Nothing? (I'm guessing that's the right answer but I wanted to check.) --] (]) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Nothing (we think!) - you shouldn't see a difference. ] 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::It shouldn't make any difference to have both. The most it might mean is that admin's ability to use rollback is limited (because the new right is as I understand it capped at a certain number of rollbacks at a given time whereas admins can technically rollback as often as they want) if the software is confused by the same user having both rights. I would remove rollback at the same time as I added +sysop to a user who already had rollback after they had a successful RfA. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This sets a substandard precedent, and completely undermines established practice. Consensus is not counting the votes, it is not 2-1, and it is not ]. While we are at it lets put ] into practice. Who cares that it could be abused, and that it might cause unforeseen problems, dammit it had 84% support. And how about ], I'm sure in some editors eyes it has reached consensus. ] &#124; ] 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Agreed, and not only in terms of what consensus means but who determines whether consensus exists at all. Developers do not determine policy and they haven't been empowered to judge consensus. ] (]) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm a little surprised by all of this as well. As I understand it, developers have discretion to add features, not add RIGHTS. Simply because adding this "right" required modification to the software, does not make it solely a developer issue. This is going to be a rather bitter mess and there's no reason for it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand for the life of me what the angst is all about. Even without this, anyone can use scripts to get rollback. This is only being given to people who affirmatively request it. If can be taken away if abused. There's an upside of making reverting vandalism easier and a downside that is what - admins might disagree over it? That potential is already there for blocking and any other admin decision ... somehow, we get through it. --] (]) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:While I did oppose the non-admin-rollback proposal, that is not the issue now. The issue is this mockery of what we as Wikipedians have for years considered "consensus". Consensus is not a word or concept we throw around lightly. For this to happen, in this way is outrageous. ] &#124; ] 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::The issue isn't the tool. I would have easily supported this had it been non-bureaucratic. Consensus can change, sure, but now what constitutes a consensus can change? Per my post at ]: "The ] the vote was 216/108 (66.66% approved) and failed. This one is 304/151 (66.81% approved) and passed." It's a disturbing standard that what constitutes a consensus can change, that a developer can simply implement a RIGHT, without explanation (or without even knowing WHAT developer did it) and there's currently zero processes available to review that developers decision. I couldn't care less about the rollback... I DO care about a Misplaced Pages technocracy. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::If ] didn't excite you enough, we now have ] where users can bitch and moan for 5 days after their request for rollback is declined. Yay! - ] ] 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::That wasn't even a part of the original proposal. Perhaps we should throw on ] as well? Out of process, who cares! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Consensus can change, but consensus about consensus cannot change? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Sure it can... point me to the community discussion that implied consensus about consensus has changed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*The consensus about the consensus would have to get consensus that consensus on the consensus has indeed changed. You can't just say *poof* this is consensus. The Wiki is not ] you really can not fly, and Santa Claus is not real. ] &#124; ] 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*Not sure I can, I was just throwing that out as what appeared to have happened very quietly. This now made the how much wood can a woodchuck chuck limerick get stuck in my head, but replaced with "consensus". <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a separate log of the rollback requests granted? We currently have , but the rollback stuff is mixed up with the sysop granting. I'd like to be able to extract a clear number each day of the number of people with rollback status. No, hang on, I'm in the wrong Special page. I want . Bingo. For the record, we currently (as of 02:00 10/01/2008) have less than 100 rollbackers. Let's try and keep track of all this: (1) Total numbers; (2) Who grants the most requests; (3) Numbers having it removed; (4) Any problems with the system. If there ''is'' going to be a huge fuss about this, let's at least get some numbers on the record. ] (]) 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Ugh, there are enough logs as is, really. ''']''' 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... I had rollback before it was installed in the software when I was not an admin. How is this different from something a user installs in their Monobook.js?—] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:I know... I don't understand what the big deal is. -- ''']''' 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::The big deal (to whatever extent a big deal it is) is that there is no apparent consensus for this, who judged that consensus exists and how it was implemented. You are talking about the pros and cons of the policy proposal, which took place already. ] (]) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, feel that it's totally ridiculous that the comments, opinions, and objections of a full third of the individuals who commented on this proposal have been totally ignored. The right was added, despite it being clear there was no consensus to add it &mdash; consensus is not a "simple majority", and the discussion indicates that there were many objections to this on a wide variety of grounds. Furthermore, the process through which the right was granted, and which a number of users (myself included) objected to, was also put into place immediately &mdash; even while there were on-going discussion over how to implement it! I don't really care that passionately about all this mumbo-jumbo, but I definitely don't feel like my views were valued or even listened to at all in how this was implemented. --] (]) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Currently this is becoming a bloodbath, right now it's a bloodbath in the admins channel, while I rejected the proposal, I don't mind for now, the only expection is people are way too quick to give rollback away, as I could see now. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm worried that it's going to be used exactly as I objected in the original proposal &mdash; as yet another social clique, wherein Misplaced Pages formalizes a class of "trusted users" who are granted superior rights to normal users. This is one of the main problems with adminship, and since ''admins'' are the ones doing the the granting here, I can only see it continuing this. The method in which it's being granted indicates to me that this is exactly what's happening &mdash; admins are granting tools either with minimal oversight, or to users whom they "trust" already without any community input. I trust a number of users, but I'm not sure the community would want me giving them tools without at least some kind of discussion. --] (]) 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I am seeing people with one side of their mouth saying they know how consensus is judged and with the other side quoting percents of previous proposals vs this one. If you are just comparing vote ratios you will never understand how consensus is created. ] 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I understand consensus, and my argument was not based on vote-counting, or any such thing. I have a history of working with disputed articles where consensus is important, and I can tell you what has happened here is ''not'' how consensus is formed &mdash; not now, not ever. --] (]) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Agree with Secret to the extent that admins are granting it without much thought, last I looked someone granted 9 requests in 10 minutes. That's not enough time to give much attention to the contribs of the requesting editor.

*I don't mean to sound sour or cynical (but it may come across that way - for which I apologize), but I wonder if 1) some admins really have such a low opinion of both other admins' judgement in granting rollback and in the abilities and good-faith of those editors to whom it is being granted, and 2) some of the comments seem a bit like "No, we mussstn't let them have our precioussss.... ". oh, and 3) has there ''ever'' been a consensus as to what consensus is? In short - please admins, try to trust each others' judgement, and if you see the tool being misused - then remove it from the editor misusing it. ] (]) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*: I'm upset because my objection, which was shared by a large number of other people, doesn't fall into any of your characterizations of people opposed to this category, yet was totally ignored without even a word of compromise in the implementation. No discussion, nothing. --] (]) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*::For what it's worth, this wasn't the implementation I wanted, for reasons similar to Haemo's - but let's give it a chance, see how it goes, trust admins to deal with abuses, and to talk to each other if they disagree on individual cases. ] (]) 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And now bots have the rollback assigned to them. Utter bullshit, and a complete slap in the face to many users. ] &#124; ] 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Ridiculous. I supported granting bots, but I can appreciate that fact that many people had a strong opinion about this and that a discussion was needed. In fact, I was commented in one a little while ago &mdash; apparently, that doesn't matter anymore because this non-policy-policy brooks no discussion. --] (]) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, giving bots rollback rights has overwhelming consensus. Please see ].--] (] | ]) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Overwhelming ''votes'' in a low-profile discussion that's been running for only a couple of days. Not enough to address the concerns, or opinions of those objection, or even to ensure that everyone who wants a say gets one. --] (]) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::(e/c) Right, there was a discussion on the VP about it, only a couple months ago if I'm not mistaken. It was rejected then, it's been rejected before that. What 2 days and there is consensus to give bots rollback? What fuck? Might as well make them ], wait those have a long history of rejection too. ] &#124; ] 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
While I am in support of this policy, I must oppose its implementation. '''The process of consensus was not given the opportunity to finish.''' Obviously, this was such a divisive proposal that it would be impossible to make everyone happy, but Ithink this decision makes even many of the supporters unhappy. Since wikipedia is not a democracy (see ]) the '''poll was never meant to create consensus'''. It is supposed to be a judge of consensus, to be followed by more discussion for the ''real'' consensus to be formed. <notserious> It seems that the Cabal is once again imposing policy against consensus</notserious>.--] (] | ]) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Well, ask DragonHawk where is to close the poll. I think the poll could have continued, even when the implementation was done. As I said, developers can implement it, but we decide whether to use it or not in this Misplaced Pages (like the flagged revisions). -- ] (]) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

===Arbcom===
I'm drafting a request for an arbcom case right now, but not really sure who to add as a party. It's not really fair to make someone a party simply because they supported rollback, or opposed it. -- ] 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:The correct way would be to contact every participant through user talk page informing the situation and explaining why you think a request for arbitration is necessary, and where to join, instead of spending time in soap operas :-P (yeah, that is a joke to calm you down ;-)) -- ] (]) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:This is really uncalled-for. -- ''']''' 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::He is free to try it out. -- ] (]) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::And I'm free to say it's really uncalled-for. -- ''']''' 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Find the name of the developer. Or at least leave a blank space. Ryan and 1!=2 seem to be the most visible supporters, and Doc Glasgow the most visible opponent. Add me as a party if you want - I'm prepared to say a lot about what has happened here and go on the record about it. It'll probably get rejected though. ] (]) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::In lieu of a long list of parties, give notice and a link to the case on the talkpages of the relevant discussions, and provide those links in the request for arbitration so the arbitrators will know that you have done so. (Not commenting on the merits of any issue or case.) ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
: ArbCom? Dear me, the world has gone mad. If you're hoping to impose sanctions on the developers, ArbCom is project-specific, the developers are not; the former cannot boss the latter around. If on the other hand you just want to get rid of the ability for administrators to grant and remove rollback, have you tried just asking them yourself? – ] 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::And how are we supposed to really be involved in the implementation? None of us have any authority with respect to a developers, they make the decisions with respect to software changes - we can't wave our magic wands. ] 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about on one side, ] developer(s), and on the other, concerned users, etc. In my eyes, it is the dev(s) who is ultimately responsible for this.--] (] | ]) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
: IIIIIIIIIInnnnnn the red cornah... Brion "I have a day named after me" VIBBER! Aaahhhn in the blue cornah... a horde of angry users! And your referee for tonight, yes, it's the nerdiest kids in town, give it up for the one, the only, ''Arbitration Committee''! *grabs popcorn, sits back to watch* – ] 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::(after I stopped laughing) - are you confirming it was Brion? ] (]) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Let's make this simple. Are developers part of the community or not? Do they work ''for'' the community, or is the community and the encyclopedia a plaything of the developers? What power does the foundation have over developers? ] (]) 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::They work for the Wikimedia Foundation. – ] 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::And who does the Foundation work for? And you didn't answer the question about whether developers are part of the community or not. ] (]) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization. It doesn't work for anyone – ] 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::So how does it achieve its goals (like this free content encyclopedia)? It relies on volunteers, some of which write and upgrade software used by other volunteers to write the encyclopedia. Who tells developers what is needed? Developers, the communities or the Foundation? The answer is all three, but how do developers decide which requests from communities to work on? There are votes on Bugzilla, but it helps on both sides if at least some developers communicate with and participate in the communities that they are writing the software for. This avoids unworkable requests being made after much discussion, and avoids developers implementing changes while discussion is still ongoing. ] (]) 04:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think arbcom would be a real wake-up call to all of those who feel slighted by the way this turned out. I think arbcom is for the community and I think the community wants rollback. ] 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::This isn't so much about the proposal of rollback, it's about the lack of the process of consensus in its implementation. Discussion was still going on, and then, smack in the middle of discussion, "oh hey lets go ahead and make this a feature anyways." Oh, and while I don't know which dev(s) turned it on, it would have to be a dev, since they are the only ones with that power (as far as I know). --] (] | ]) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my own personal rationale for requesting an arbcom case:

I think, at the very least, it would be a good idea to ask arbcom on how we handle these situations in the future, and if the current rollback feature should be kept (or acted upon, in lieu of arbcom not being able to make rulings for developers). I can't place blame on any en.wiki user, and would not seek out any kind of punishment for anyone's actions here. Not even the developer that made the change.

I would prefer having a community discussion about this first, but we all know what will happen, people will jump in to close such discussions and say "omg, no dramaz, edit wiki plz" (for a lack of better words). This has pissed off a lot of users, and raises a lot of questions. Being able to discuss this in an arbcom case, and then asking the trusted arbitrators to evaluate the concerns presented, seems to be the only reasonable (and actionable) way to deal with this situation. -- ] 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
: Yeah. Of course anyone who suggests that we should actually all just go and edit the wiki is a troll and should be ignored. This big pile of shit rapidly filling up the noticeboard is the perfect way to deal with things! :P – ] 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has no authority here... Wikimedia sysadmins > Misplaced Pages arbitration committee... &mdash; <tt>] ]</tt> 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:''English'' Misplaced Pages arbitration committee, at that. Dear me, committees and bureaucracy everywhere you look. Ever get the feeling people forgot this was a wiki? Why can't we just let this thing run and ''see for ourselves'' if there are problems, rather than removing it due to entirely hypothetical problems that show no sign yet of materializing? – ] 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed; I meant to clarify. The developers and sysadmins by ''necessity'' when to change the settings of Wikimedia wikis, and they know what they're doing. The talk of a "coup" above is hyperbole of the greatest magnitude. Reference: . &mdash; <tt>] ]</tt> 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:This has been brought up. It's true that devs are free to enable or disable whatever features they want, but that doesn't mean en.wiki approves a policy/process that uses those features. -- ] 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Developers ''make'' policy. &mdash; <tt>] ]</tt> 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Sure they do. -- ] 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::No, developers write features. Where is the developed feature that states that admins need to grant rollback based on lack of edit warring and have experience? Or was that decided by someone else and rejected by the community as part of a poll with no consensus? -] (]) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::For the sake of argument, I must note that developers have a ''prime'' role in the creation of policy. Please see ], especially the part about "sources of policy". While there has been no ''declaration'' here and no real implicit approval of existing statements, their role in this is ''not'' out of line. &mdash; <tt>] ]</tt> 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Nowhere does it state that admins need to grant rollback, because they don't. All administrators could decide not to grant rollback for any reason if they wished – ] 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::You seemingly missed the point of my comment - replace "need" with "can". My point was the policy isn't being performed solely as developed in software, but as the policy that was rejected. -] (]) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clear things up a bit: the one who enabled the feature was ], a root administrator (who has a couple dozen edits here since 2002, when he was a bit more active). He was acting on {{bug|12534}}, which was a request to enable this functionality on the English Misplaced Pages. If you object, you may want to or complain personally to JeLuF, Brion Vibber, or some other appropriate person. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
: While I personally welcome this new feature, I have reopened bug 12534 on behalf of those objecting here – ] 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

*<big>H</big>as anybody tried contacting a Developer? Maybe visit one of their pages on the Meta? Or in the meta IRC? Contact info is . - ] (]) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*:I'm a developer. I seem to be the only one who's bothering to comment. I think some of the others have seen it, but I doubt they care. Root admins do not revert-war, the only one who's going to be reversing it is either JeLuF or Brion, and neither one is on. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*::I've said this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here because it's important. Developers ''need'' to be active on large Wikimedia projects when large changes like this are being implemented, otherwise it is just (however unintentional) disruptive. It's like giving a room full of kids a new toy and watching them fight over it. There also need to be better channels of communication between developers and the community, so that developers are actively involved in wider discussions like this. The community could encourage the Foundation to encourage developers to use such channels, or a Foundation representative could ensure such communication took place, but at the end of the day the developers should take an active interest in the community for which they are developing the tools to build an encyclopedia. Too many developers become "old hands" and lose interest in the grass roots and get engrossed in development and lose touch with the communities (there are many of them) that are actually ''using'' their tools. Bugzilla is great for requesting changes and tweaks, but is not great for meta-discussion. There is a technical mailing list. What other venues are there for the community and developers to interact? ] (]) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*:::As I said on ]: you cannot feasibly ask that of the sysadmins. Realize that JeLuF is a volunteer, and has taken it upon himself to handle configuration requests. This is viewed, by the shell and root users, as tedious already, although it takes only a few minutes per request. There was in fact a period of months at one point when no sysadmin could be bothered to go to the effort of fulfilling any configuration requests at all, and so some requests just sat there for six months. JeLuF, admirably, has recently slogged through most (all?) of the backlog, so that communities that request changes can actually get them fulfilled promptly. If you're going to put even more hoops in the way of this kind of request, none will ever get done.<p>Regardless, I very much doubt any shell requests from the English Misplaced Pages are going to get fulfilled very soon, after this whole drama (assuming it gets reversed, which seems probable). You don't have to worry about the sysadmins treading where they aren't wanted, if it's clear that in fact they ''aren't'' wanted. They're only there to help. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*::::I'm aware that we are nearly all volunteers (including the developers), as I've said elsewhere (and following up on your edit summary, apologies if I'm switching back-and-forth between different threads too much). I hope you are not serious about developers ignoring requests from en-Misplaced Pages? That seems like the sort of thing that would end up being discussed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which ultimately is responsible for ensuring that software development for the projects progresses at a timely rate, and that volunteer efforts to do this are properly co-ordinated. But to get back to the issue at hand, all people are asking here, is for developers to look where they are treading. If, as you seem to say, this was granted as part of someone slogging through a backlog, might I politely suggest that this approach needs to be carried out with more care in future? There are numerous examples on many projects where people working their way through backlogs slip up on something due to the goal becoming to clear the backlog, rather than assess each case carefully. I'm not saying that is what happened here, just that clearing backlogs can be inherently dangerous if done too quickly. ] (]) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*:::::I'm very serious about sysadmins quite possibly being reluctant to implement any request from enwiki if it raises a firestorm from users who were indignant that they didn't hear about it/procedure wasn't followed (what procedure?)/etc. If I were a sysadmin, I wouldn't want to get involved in fights about enabling features or not.<p>As for the board, I am not aware of a single time the Board has ever passed any resolution related to development or server administration except to give them more money and appoint people to various officerships. I very much doubt they'll get involved. They have bigger things to worry about than some tiny uproar in one of their projects.<p>This was not done as part of clearing a backlog. This was a recent request; the backlog was already cleared, or nearly so. The problem lay in the fact that enwiki has extraordinarily high barriers to consensus. Anyone from outside (which JeLuF more or less is, if you look at his edits) would assume that in a poll with over 450 people commenting, something getting two-thirds approval is good enough to implement it. Two-thirds is typically considered overwhelming agreement in most contexts outside of Misplaced Pages. (I can't speak for JeLuF's reasons, mind you, I'm just surmising.) —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*::::::No, this does make things clearer and is helpful. Moving forward, what would you suggest should be done to make sysadmins happier to implement requests from en-wiki? Better ways to communicate, perhaps, like going to the project and asking if they are ready for the tool yet? The large community on en-Misplaced Pages (and consequent difficulties with consensus and large votes) doesn't always seem to interact well with the smaller community of developers and sysadmins. What can be done to improve this? If the Foundation don't want to get involved, how else can things be improved so this sort of thing doesn't happen again? I suggest better use of discussion forums such as the technical mailing list. ] (]) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*:::::::Well, I'm not saying that sysadmins will refuse to fulfill enwiki requests. If I were they I would be pretty cautious, after things like this, but I'm not a sysadmin and can't speak for them. Just in case you misunderstand, I'm talking about shell requests, i.e., configuration requests specific to enwiki, not new features generally. For new features generally, nobody cares what enwiki thinks ― the changes are made to the software defaults, which are used by ''all'' installations of MediaWiki, Wikimedia or otherwise, and enwiki is only a small percentage of that. I don't think I've ever seen a shell request from enwiki that actually got fulfilled and stayed fulfilled. They're not really necessary if you're happy with the customizations you can make in the MediaWiki: namespace. Mostly they're only used for setting up groups and permissions (e.g., one wiki asked that all sysops be given bureaucrat rights), enabling or disabling a couple of optional features (like patrolling), adjusting namespaces, and a few miscellaneous things like the prerequisites for autoconfirmed. If you're happy with all of those, there's no need for shell requests.<p>For this not happening again, honestly, it's hardly a big incident. It will probably be reversed in a matter of hours. I don't think there's much point in expending energy on avoiding a repeat incident, which almost certainly will not happen in any case for months at the least. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

=== I have four words for you ===

– ] 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:]? (Ok, I haven't watched the video clip yet, so if this seems silly in light of that...) ] (]) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Well I don't recall Ballmer chanting that, but it's a fair point :) – ] 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::And the video is very funny. Thanks for that. ] (]) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::More appropriate would be if the four words were "I... LOVE... THIS... COMMUNITY!!!!" -- ''']''' 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Except that wouldn't be true. I hate this community's dysfunctional guts. Devs, though, now they're cool – ] 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
===]===
The community is the maker of policy, not ArbCom. I propose we work out a consensus policy as a community on this issue. ] 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:I agree, and I suggest that the first thing we do is protect the page and stop implementing a feature that had a questionable "consensus to implement". I am COMPLETELY open to implementing this as a feature, and COMPLETELY opposed to doing so after it was implemented out of process. In the few hours this policy has been active, there have been several modifications on how admins will determine if a user should be allowed to have the tool. ] looks exactly how one would expect: like a policy was implemented without ANY discussion, and now that it is implemented, discussion by a relative small group of people is resulting in changes to the approval process, however minor. At first an admin could simply approve and archive, then it was 15 minutes, now it's an hour. Now it seems more than a single admin has to give approval to send it through (in some cases). NONE of this was discussed when this policy was proposed, and now it's being run by the seat of everyones pants. It's stunning just HOW poorly this was executed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Just because there is no specific written rules does not mean it is going poorly. Believe it or not, people can get by without a bunch of rules. When patrolled edits for ] was turned on, there was no pre-existing policy. Some guidelines were quickly drafted up, a calm discussion followed, and after some initial bumps, the system began to work well. There is still no "official policy" for it. Also, as policy is supposed to be descriptive of how things are done, not proscriptive, writing a full set of rules before we even begin to use the new system is very difficult. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 09:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::There's still a question of whether or not there was consensus to IMPLEMENT it. And believe it or not, it makes considerably more sense to determine how something should be implemented before we hit the "on" button. Why have proposals if we can just "do stuff" without explanation as that's "proscriptive". ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

===An interesting fact===
It's probably worth pointing out at this point that rate-limited rollback (a new feature) was originally set up in the software to be given to all users (or all autoconfirmed users, I can't remember which); that part of the software was disabled after complaints, pending onwiki discussion. The resistance to change shown here is interesting; if the change had been made originally, would the people currently complaining consider keeping the change if it only got 33% support in a vote? The whole '66% is not consensus' thing is ridiculous; vote count cannot be consensus by itself, but in the case of a new feature which couldn't previously be given it's hard to see what the default status should be. If Misplaced Pages had just now switched to the MediaWiki software from the previous software, rather than switching years ago, but for some reason the devs had been busy improving MediaWiki anyway all that time, the change would likely have already been in the software and a 33% vote to turn it off would have been unlikely to have been acted on. So, if there isn't consensus for a feature, and there isn't consensus against it, and the feature would have been turned on if not for objections... --] 08:55, 10 January 2008 (]]])
:It's not the FEATURE that's at issue here. And claiming that the lack of a consensus for a "feature" means to implement it is contrary to EVERY other process at Misplaced Pages. No consensus is status quo, plain and simple. That being said, I'm all for this feature for users, however, I'm completely against a process for admins "approving" it. IMHO, this should be given to all auto-confirmed users (at least). Instead we've invented more instruction creep. This isn't the delete button. Do admins really need to be determining who should and shouldn't get rollback? Nope. So why DO we have this "process" to implement a feature everyone should have? All this does is create yet ANOTHER schism between the admin and the editor. The difference is NOTHING more than access to additional tools, but now, admins are granting rights? Do we REALLY need to pat ourselves on the back for being important, or can we actually write an encyclopedia without social classes? I hope for the latter, but I am rapidly losing faith. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::The feature '''was enabled by default''' in the software at one point: see ] if you don't believe me. However, that particular version of the software was never uploaded to Misplaced Pages; it was reverted at ], over 24 hours later, after ]. --] 13:42, 10 January 2008 (]]])
:There are probably people who were opposed to turning this on (at least not without further debate and fine-tuning), who would have opposed switching off an existing feature, so the two can't really be meaningfully compared. Bringing in a new feature is completely different to switching off a default feature. ] (]) 10:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

===Who should create the policy?===
As it seems, the devs have implemented "on their own". They are employed by the WikiMedia Foundation. Therefore, I am now waiting for an official rollback policy to be formulated by WMF and announced by its representative. ]] 12:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, from what it seems, Ryan Postlethwaite said the poll was closed at ], that under his view there was consensus but asked the developer to check that out (even though the developer may not have known about that). I believe this may have been a series of unfortunate coincidences, that I can't find, Ryan assuming consensus was reached, and the developer not being able to judge consensus (not that he had to, mind you). -- ] (]) 14:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

===This is silly===

If you are an admin and don't want the bureaucracy of granting rollback, don't - others will fill the need. If you are a non-admin and don't want rollback, don't ask for it. There is nothing whatsoever harmful about giving it to EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is not a blatant vandal. Even if someone is edit warring, so what? You can block them. This meltdown is insane. --] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Well said! The people complaining about this seriously have nothing better to do than complain about this, and should go and write an aricle or something. It's really harmless, and complaining about it is unproductive and unhelpful. If you don't like the idea of it, ''don't look at the page''. That's all I can say. ''']''' ('']'') 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::No, it's the misguided arguments that are silly. I've said from the very beginning the tool isn't the issue. The issue is a handful of admins taking it upon themselves to implement rollback with (at best) a controversial consensus. Talking about the tool at this point is simply misdirection. Setting the precedent of ] is my concern. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::What about the 2/3 of Wikipedians that ''wanted'' it implemented? Besides, most of the objections were either based on misconceptions or were objections that would apply to the script-based rollback that already exists and thus were moot. I can fully understand (and really, agree with) the objections based on the process being a pointless bureaucracy, but it is what it is. I'm sorry, but I don't see how doing something that 2/3 of Wikipedians wanted is an abuse. --] (]) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm ONE of the people that want it implemented... for EVERYONE. None of this admin granting rights nonsense. Admins don't grant rights, 'crats do. And if 2/3 of Wikipedians want an editor granted admin tools, they don't get them. The purpose of a poll is to get an idea of where a consensus might stand, and rework a proposal to find a solid consensus. It is NOT designed to create consensus based on !voting. The way this was implemented was absurd. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::What if we didn't call it a right and called it blocking them from using rollback vs unblocking them from using rollback? The distinction is arbitrary. Admins have the technical capability to grant or revoke the right to edit a page or the right to edit period. The fact that we call this a right but don't call the other things rights is a different in semantics. Really, letting admins grant or revoke this privilege is less harmful than letting admins block users. --] (]) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(de-indent) Now, here's why we should all stop clamouring about giving users rollback and get on with editing the damn encyclopedia:
#Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. We do not need to issue ballot papers, have them notarized twice, signed in the presence of four witnesses, and then burn them and sit around until something called a "consensus" rises.
#Consensus is about a broad agreement. It is not about:
#*Substituting "x% supermajority vote" for "consensus", where x% is slightly greater than the percentage that exists
#*Arguing that any attempt to vote is invalid, because Misplaced Pages doesn't vote (hint: ] ]])
#*Yelling at people that they're ignoring consensus until they give up, and the last man standing declaring that his opinion is the consensus
#It's debatable whether or not adminship is a big deal, but rollback certainly isn't. Anyone can use ] which is just one more click than rollback.
#If someone misuses rollback having been granted it, then we can block them, just as we already do to people who revert inappropriately the normal way, or we can remove rollback as easily as it is granted.
#Does it really matter that someone implemented a new feature without dealing with the ]-like requirements of a minority?
#If you don't like rollback, don't use it, and if you're an admin and don't like it, don't grant it.
Now, any chance we can do something other than trying to form a consensus on how to form a consensus on what a consensus is? ] (]) 09:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

===On administrators===

I understand the principle, but from observation, this is all very disruptive. WP:RFR seems simple enough, if you want it, go ask for it. If you don't want it anymore, go ask for that. No more policy is needed. Not everything has to have the step by step instruction set and criteria. Administrators go thru the gauntlet that is RFA, because their judgment is being scrutinized. Now let them use it. ]
:] doesn't need to be complex, but we don't want wheel wars to develop over whether a specific user should have rights. But we can keep it simple. I agree, we should trust the judgement of admins on this as we do with the other tools. ] 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::The risk of a wheel war over a specific user is no worse than the risk of a wheel war over blocking or deleting. Really, it's a very low risk because at most it's a mild inconvenience and the user has a workaround available (use a script). Adminship is no big deal &reg; so what does that make rollback? Rollback is so non-destructive that there's no harm in exercising the ]. --] (]) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree. And our policy should reflect those sentiments. ] is an example of things the ] should cover. ] 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::If rollback is no big deal, why the need for a complex needless process? Why not give it everybody? -] (]) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I think we should - as long as the person is obviously not a vandal, give it to them. If they edit war with it, it can be taken away or they can be blocked. --] (]) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, really, of all the "powers" that come with adminship, rollback is by far the most trivial. Creating a process for judging users worthy or unworthy of this particular minor "perk" is going to hurt more feelings than it's worth. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:First, let's all continue as we have so far, in a spirit of calm goodwill and discussion. I recommend that people basically do nothing at all here, i.e. please don't go awarding this ability to lots of people in an effort to create "facts on the ground" about how it is used. :-) Now, speaking to the constitutional question of who gets to decide this sort of thing and how, in the old days it would be me, but as is well known I am interested in evolving community policy so that my traditional role becomes increasingly symbolic and institutionalized.

:An example of how this was done once before: I asked that anon creation of new articles be disabled, a policy that is perhaps unfortunately still with us. And I don't like doing things by fiat like that anymore. We need a peaceful, organized, systematic way of doing this sort of thing. So, here is what we will do in this case, and I think this can be done pretty quickly.

:A better example of how something became policy (though it had no software implications): in the case of 3RR, there was a community vote with overwhelming majority in favor of a 3 revert rule, and then I blessed it to make it formal policy.

:1) There will be community poll/votes on whether to turn the feature on at all, and a general policy.
:2) Following that, the ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.

(I can not guarantee that the Foundation will agree, as I am only one of 7 board members, and not involved in management at all, but I consider it highly unlikely that they would disagree with a formal decision of the community.)

:The ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--] (]) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::So, is that the official word on how this situation is going to be handled? What happens in the interim? Do we stop granting it? Is it going to be disabled? --] (]) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oh dear. Jimbo, you're not helping. I was kind of with you right up until you said the word "ArbCom", at which point I slammed my head into the desk. Try to be useful if you're going to intervene :) – ] 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
: Does anyone else feel like invoking ] and ignoring anything either Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee says on the matter from now on? – ] 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Admins who do that tend to get desysopped. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Not if they all did it – ] 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Yes, except it's not ignoring any rule to ignore them on a matter not related to dispute resolution. –] 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Oh good grief, a 2/3 supermajority of the community wanted the thing turned on. Lots of people who opposed wanted it turned on but just didn't like the formalities of the process. Still more opposed for reasons that have nothing to do with rollback and that would also apply to twinkle, which is accessible to all users from the day they register an account. Based on the number of users who have requested it (around 250), that's pretty good evidence of community support. This meltdown is over the top. If someone can come up with a better implementation, by all means, suggest it, but getting Jimbo/the board/arbcom involved when there hasn't actually been a problem is just over the top. Blocking is far more problematic than rollback. We have several blocking issues brought to ANI every day but somehow we get through them and Misplaced Pages continues to exist. If a bad grant of rollback is made or if wheel warring occurs, we will manage somehow to get through it. --] (]) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::The Arbitration Committee would be one thing, Jimbo, but the Wikimedia Foundation? Why is this something to make a "formal request" about, or something for the foundation to get involved in at all? Wikimedia hosts and supports Misplaced Pages and the other projects, traditionally it doesn't decide how to run them, and I'm concerned this would be a bad precedent. I'd much rather see this as an opportunity to recognize the traditional role that Brion and a few other developers (some of them Wikimedia employees, but that's purely incidental) have long played, as trusted and respected individuals, in making decisions of this type. --] (]) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::'''I agree with you completely. This is not something to get the Foundation involved in at all.''' That is exactly the point of what I am doing here, actually. What I mean by a "formal request to the foundation" is that ultimately, Brion is an employee of the foundation and controls the software. If there are optional features of the software which can be turned on or off, then I do not think the foundation should be deciding those things, but rather the community should be deciding those things. However, the Foundation also not be in the position of trying to judge something as complex as whether or not there is consensus. I want that to be the community's job. Some people are saying there is consensus to turn this on. Others are saying not. I just want to make sure that the developers are given clear guidance from the community.--] (]) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::That's partly the point, though. There ''was'' a communication breakdown somewhere along the line, as some people thought the process had failed to gain consensus (with inevitable comparisons to the last straw poll which had the same result), others thought it had been accepted, and most (I think) were getting ready to come up with a new proposal that would gain a clearer consensus. What happened was that the main communication channel seemed to have been the bugzilla report (see ) - the developer that implemented it seemed to have taken Ryan's comment (and maybe the straw poll) as a green light to go ahead, when a little bit more digging would have shown that it might have been better to wait a while. Developers are good at answering technical questions, but judging consensus on issues like this is not something that many (if any) developers have practice at. What is needed is a clearer way to communicate with developers, and making clearer who decides on-wiki in cases of consensus. For the Main Page redesign, I seem to remember a bureaucrat delivered a verdict there. A similar decision should have happened here - an uninvolved bureucrat should have been asked to say whether they judged there was consensus. I had a long debate with Simetrical about developers, the Foundation, and the Wikimedia communities, where I said developers need to be more involved with the communities, and Simetrical was saying that this doesn't work in practice (or something like that - I may be misrepresenting what was said). At the end of the day, communication was the key here. ] (]) 00:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::You can say there was a communications problem, sure, my concern is that this doesn't seem like it's something appropriate for formal involvement by the Wikimedia Foundation. Most MediaWiki developers are not foundation employees, and I don't believe the person in this case is. --] (]) 01:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Your point here is well-taken, and as you see above, I agree with you completely. My proposal can be read as "formal request to the developers". But the ultimate point is that the developers, volunteer or otherwise, don't really have final authority over community decisions.--] (]) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

← What the hell does this mean... ''another'' vote? ArbCom will probably "follow the vote of the community"? Does that mean majority rules? How much majority should they require? What happened to consensus? Why is the foundation suddenly involved? None of this sounds like the Misplaced Pages I know. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''01:28, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>
::What it means is precisely that "majority rules" need not be the rule. The ArbCom will likely follow the vote of the community, if it is clear and persuasive, but if it is not, they might design a new poll, or ask the community to redraw the policy in a way that gets broad acceptance. The whole point of involving the ArbCom here is that we do not want any of the following:
::# The community votes and 50%+1 prevails (because this likely prevents the development of an alternative proposal with much higher support levels)
::# The developers have final authority over what features are turned on
::# Jimbo decides.
::# The ArbCom decides without regard for the wider community's positon.--] (]) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Not that I actually disagree with it, but this whole argument has come about because people don't consider the 67% result of the previous poll to constitute consensus; if it really did end up as 51%:49% we would only be back where we started. Still better than ArbCom telling us what to do. And frankly, I'd rather the developers had final authority than ArbCom (still would prefer the community to have it, of course) – ] 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
← Again I'll say what happened to consensus? I could honestly understand it if there are so many people involved in this decision that we're abandoning consensus in favor of democracy, because consensus would be too difficult to judge on such a large scale. But that still was never explicitly stated, and it probably ought to be. And if that's not the case, then what praytell '''is''' going on here? <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''11:45, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

===Bureaucrats should judge consensus===
Why not just ask the en-wiki bureaucrats to have a bureaucrat chat and deliver a verdict on whether there was consensus? That way the ArbCom can concentrate on the cases they are dealing with, and the community can accept the verdict of the bureaucrats? ] (]) 00:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:No thanks - bureaucrats determine consensus in RFAs and RFBs and nowhere else. Consensus for bureaucratship is 90%, adminship is 75% - logically the next step is 60% for rollback. ''']''' ('']'') 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Huh? Are you saying that the request for rollback process should have RfA-style debates with 60% as a guide to determine consensus? That process has nothing to do with the process of polling for policy changes. I think you will find that getting policy changes implemented requires widespread consensus (ie. normally higher than 60-70%), and often several drafts and rounds of negotiation to achieve that. The Main Page redesign went through 5 or 6 drafts, and the poll ran for over two weeks, and 687/213/43 (76%) was achieved. I'm still trying to track down the closing discussion there, but Raul I believe took part. There ''is'' precedent for bureaucrats being asked to judge consensus on issues - can anyone remember examples? ] (]) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I couldn't think of anything worse than RFA style requests. The thought makes me feel quite ill... anyhow, I don't think some of the bureaucrats know how to determine consensus, other than counting names.''']''' ('']'') 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

===Arbitration===
I have formally requested arbitration on this matter at ]--]<sup>g</sup> 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:No need; Jimbo already remanded it to them... &mdash; <tt>] ]</tt> 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes. If there is a poll already in existence, then they can discuss whether it meets the standards for sufficient consensus to turn the feature on. They might decide to ask for a broader poll, or a poll on a slightly different question, or, or, or... --] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::...or they might decide, as they are doing, that there's no reason they should be involved at all? – ] 10:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The poll in question is at ]. ] (]) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Is there any point to this at all? This is how it will play out. A) It goes to the ArbCom, who discuss it for a long time, then decide to either i) keep the new non-admin roll-back, causing all the editors that are for it, to be outraged, and carry on with these long discussions driving away countless good editors, or ii) get rid of the new non-admin roll-back, causing all the editors that are against it, to be outraged, and carry on with these long discussions driving away countless good editors. Alternatively, B) The ArbCom reject the case, long discussions will continue, and continue, for months, driving away countless good editors till Jimbo gets fed up, and puts his foot down either way. All this bureaucracy is killing wikipedia, no decisions ever get made properly--] (]) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::If this goes as long as most ArbCom cases, ] (where the signal to noise ratio is much better than here) will be able to reach a pretty stable process. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

===Vote===
Yes, we don't !vote, but if so many people are flipping out still over this, why not just do a straight, no commentary vote. Yes, a vote. Yay/nay. No "we don't vote" nonsense. If that's what it takes, do what it takes to end it. This month.

''']'''

Enough already, please post this to the watchlist. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:As much i hate to say it, being quite fond of the whole Not a democracy idea, i have to agree, i think its the only way this is going to end, if it does. Although a vote propably wouldn't end it, as all th editors who didn't get their way would carry on arguing against the decision (quoting NOT#DEMOCRACY)--] (]) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do remember writing, when this was first brought up, that this was going to be a can of worms. I'm sorry to be proven right. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

===Foundation, decision and tea cup===

Hello,

Honest... I find that the whole story is really a storm in a tea-cup. Please try to take a step backward, and think about it again... what are we trying to accomplish... an encyclopedia, for everyone, complete, accurate, up to date, easy to read. This is a huge job, with plenty of troubles on the way already. How important is this rollback feature in the great scheme ???

Second, some people have complained that the developer would did the implementation did not respect the community. I find that most amazing. JeLuF has been a volunteer for several years and is an extremely important member of the tech team. He is not employed by the Foundation. For those who met him, he is also an absolutely adorable guy, gentle, honest, straigthforward, discreet, helpful and so on. As he told me "There was a bugzilla entry asking for the config change. There was a link to a voting, with 304 pro and 150 contra votes. This looked to me like a majority, and so I implemented it". I wish you would give him a thank you for the job he is doing on our servers and network. I wish you would be grateful to him to actually implement the changes proposed by the community. I am not convinced that he will be as responsive next time. He just wanted to help. I also think the ones who spoke bad would help the project in apologizing to him.

Third, it is absolutely excluded that I propose a resolution for the board to vote on such an issue. This is your business guys, not the business of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a community issue. I know it is hard to "be in charge", sometimes, I wish as well I could rely on someone to make a decision rather than enduring community votes or board votes. It can be so relaxing to let others make the painful decisions for us (and then have someone to scream upon). But, I think the spirit of the project is that the community runs the show. If you feel that it is too difficult to make decision with 600 voters, then switch to a Republic. Elect a group to make some decisions in the name of the community. <br>
Or go on take decisions yourselves. Running the project is your job. Not the job of the arbcom, not the job of Jimbo, not the job of the developers, not the job of the board. Your job. This is what is scary, but exciting as well.

My suggestion right now would be to say that the feature turned on by JeLuF is NOT critical. Give it a try. See if it is helpful, or to the contrary, bring in more troubles than it solves them. And revisit the issue in 3 months if necessary (yeah, vote again). Give it a try, and move on.

And wikilove, as always....

] (]) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you. We really have to sort this kind of things out on our own. ] (]) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Odd block problem ==

{{resolved}} seems to be cleared. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please could someone help ]? He is having block problems based on the use of a web accelerator - which he has disabled, but he is still having problems. He is a good contributor, but is (I think understandably) getting rather upset by it. Thanks. ] (]) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan and to all those who helped out. ] (]) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection ==

Can someone please check ]?? There are pages going unprotected and it's taking up a lot of my time. Thanks. ] (]) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:{{resolved}}It's back under control now; recommend tagging it with {{tl|adminbacklog}} in the future. ] (]) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{article|Arnold Murray}} stubbified ==

This is notification that I have blanked the article {{article|Arnold Murray}}, for constant violations of ], in particular, BLP concerns; in short, 99% of the page is uncited. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Consensus discussion ignored ==

At: {{la|Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)}}

This article came off full protect today and not long after, {{User|Reginmund}} removed a section that he has been quite uncivilly fighting on the article's talk page to remove and which is why the article was on full protect in the first place. The consensus discussion on this particular section he keeps removing has not reached a consensus but he took it upon himself to remove it anyway as soon as the article was finally unprotected, and when he did so, he cited "no concensus". As I understand it, content is not to be removed until a consensus is reached and the discussion closed, which is not the case here. is where he removed the content after the article was unprotected. is where I restored the content because the consensus discussion was still ongoing. is where he has removed the content again.

An admin needs to restore the content pending the outcome of the consensus discussion and I feel the article should go back on full protection.

And yes, I'm posting it here instead of Rfpp and ANI because this is where both of those places said to post it. ;] -- ]] 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Rollbackery ==

Hi. I woke up this morning to discover that I had somehow acquired a new user right overnight. Now I'm not complaining, but if this is to be of any use to me I'll need to integrate it with my existing RC patrol software. This would take several hours, and I'm quite busy at the moment. And apparently people are having a bit of drama because there was no consensus to implement the proposal.

Is anyone here confident that this feature will still be around in a few days' time, or is it more likely that I'll wake up some time next week and discover I've ''lost'' a user right overnight? I ask only because I don't want to waste time implementing something that will be of no use. Thanks – ] 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:There is a bit of furor, I would suggest waiting. ]] 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::There are hundreds of already in existance, it will be hard to take it back from all of them. ] 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Well not really; a single site configuration change to make the "rollbacker" group do nothing would accomplish it. I've had myself removed from this group since (a) whoever gave it me didn't go through the proper process and (b) it's of no use to me unless I integrate it with my software – ] 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Am I getting this right. Already improper granting of this right is happening? --] (]) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Not really. Just like when Ryulong was made admin and blocked a Tor proxy and everyone was jumping at him for using his new abilities while "consensus was dubious", people will do the same here. I suggest waiting a bit, in a week or so, after a few people leaving and returning, everything will be back to normal. -- ] (]) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::The term "improper" is not valid here - there is no widely approved policy in existence that would govern this process, and against which you could measure appropriateness of granting. ]] 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, no. Just like the shortlived "Table" namespace, I suspect that the rollback user right could just as easily be 'globally' switched off. Possibly the senior developers are right now engaged in a bloodbath (cf. this rumoured bloodbath in the admins channel) over whether to throw that switch or not. Or possibly there is no such switch. I do recall some discussion somewhere about how it has recently been made much easier to change user rights - did this include adding and removing new classes of user rights? If so, then there probably is a switch that ''could'' kill this new user right. Now it's been implemented, I think it will be interesting to see what happens, but I ''would'' like to see a wider debate on the Misplaced Pages ] and how to improve communication between developers and the community. One problem is that the community has grown in size and a small group of (sometimes uncommunicative - usually due to pressures of time) developers may need help in communicating with such a large community that demands a lot of the developers (and unfortunately sometimes appears to get little in return - again, due to limited volunteer resources). ] (]) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::All user rights are specified in the site configuration. Anything is possible; the developers could render the administrator group non-functional, or make everyone administrators, if they felt like it – ] 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I wasn't refering to the technical issue, but the drama and upset removing this from so many will cause. Add that to the drama we already have over the consensus issue.... ] 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That's a fair point. I sympathise with those who steered clear of scripts and whatnot, may soon get used to this tool, and may then have it ripped from them. But that is exactly why something like this should be discussed first. It took ''ages'' to get the Main Page redesigned. A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. ] (]) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There are reasons why devs are not supposed to act without a clear and settled consensus in the community. Because when they do, it is incredibly disruptive, and that is what is happening right now. This needs switched off now, before further damage is done. Then calmly and quietly we can pick our way through this issue and decide what to do. If that leads to a consensus to proceed - then at least we can do so whilst still remaining a community.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. Maybe a general RfC or RfArb centred on developers might be useful. There was the shortlived Table namespace. There was the unlogged wiping of block logs. And now this stuff about rollback rights. Developers need to act transparently and ''communicate with'' and ''participate in'' the community, not act as gods sitting above it. ] (]) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::There is a very vocal minority that says there is not a consensus. I disagree that there is a lack of consensus. Considering both the numbers and the arguments made there is clear support for the implementation of this '''harmless''' tool that anyone can undo. I want to know where it is written that the default action for this proposal is to not let the community have this tool, and that to pass it needs 80%+ support, if it was two thirds opposed there sure wouldn't be anyone saying there was a lack of consensus against it. ] 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. ] (]) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Shrugs - Those who can make a change, do. Those who oppose may be steamrolled by those who can ''quickly'' implement the change, regardless of "consensus". I watched several editors do a ] with bots/tools awhile back to speedily mass-userfy userboxes, since there was no way to oppose the action once it was done. People complained, and were ignored or ]. And now we're faced with something similar. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Disappointed? Yes, very much so, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I'll ] that this is undone so that discussion can continue, but neither will I be holding my breath. - ] 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Consensus can change, anyone can go and propose this policy be changed. Though I would wait until experience gives us the knowledge we need to make wise rules. ] 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted ] as unnecessary at this stage. ] (]) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:I slowed down the approval time from 15 minutes to an hour (though I think a day is more suitable). It was just turning into an assembly line (and apperently, the 15 minutes was added when nominations where approved ''too fast''). ] 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

* At the moment, my thoughts on rollback are this: leave it to '''''admins only''''' for now, but then give it out to users once people have tested it at ], where this really should be tested first, not here. Also, as regards wiping of block logs, where's the discussion on that and when did that happen?? --<font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
**Actually, I shouldn't have really mentioned the block log thing, as bringing that up might stir things up again. It seems to have been a one-off thing, but the principle is still there. Regardless of what happened and why, it seems sensible to have a record somewhere (private if need be) of such actions taken by developers. Then the community can be reassured that the records are being kept and can be consulted if need be. ] (]) 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
**Solumeiras, any user can have rollback on demand by adding a few lines to their monobook. All this does is make it slightly easier on the server and slightly faster for you when you rollback mass vandalism. What purpose would testing it out on the test wiki serve? --] (]) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bah, chaps, this fuss is silly. I'm fairly neutral on the whole idea but isn't the best thing that we've moved ''away from process''? Fantastic! Ok, we have ] but, for the first time, we're ''trusting people to do well without strict rules'' (see also AGF). Handing this tool randomly, without process, to people I trust really does feel rather liberating. In fact, I think we should apply this easy-give, easy-remove model of adminship (and put ] and ] in the hands of admins, not crats or stewards. It would certainly finally take this stigma of overbearing importance away from adminship. But that's another debate - the key thing here is that process has been left behind. ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Shall we do the same for blocking and unblocking, and protecting and unprotecting? Remove process and let people do what they like? (Not a serious question by the way, but just pointing out why some process is sometimes needed) ] (]) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes. Except there'd be no need to give out those rights piecemeal - as I say, the ability to ] should be in the hands of admins, to be given out whenever they like. We would be able to leave RFA behind. This whole silly fuss we make over admin rights, which are essentially trivial, would be forgotten. Most of Misplaced Pages's problems arise from process, not from an absence of it. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Although I'd love to see RFA left behind (at least in its current form), with the trouble it's taken to have rollback implemented, and the fuss people are making over it, I cannot possibly see it happening at any time. ''']''' ('']'') 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Clarification - Twinkle ==

Requesting community clarification on the following Twinkle issue:

1) Archived Twinkle discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive350#Twinkle

2) Twinkle talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jaakobou#Detwinkled

Thank you in advance, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:This is clearly admin shopping Jaakobou. But fair enough, I'd welcome a review from a neutral admin if you really want it. ] 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Ryan, please try ] - I'm not asking the question to embarrass you, Only asking it to avoid similar issues in the future. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. '''summary:''' I've been de-twinkled on, "persistant misuse of the tool" (2), and i'd appreciate '''''clarifications regarding the Twinkle policies'''''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Right on the top of ] it says "Be advised that '''you take full responsibility for any action performed''' using Twinkle." It is generally accepted that if you misuse the tool (i.e. use it to revert edits while in a content dispute), that an administrator may remove it from your monobook.js file for a period of time. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::(ec)Consensus was established in December on AN - ] - that misuse of automated editing tools was grounds for having those tools taken away. Looking at the diffs Ryan provided on your talk page, you have been edit warring. We don't do that. And you have been edit warring with the aid of TWINKLE. Therefore, you get your TWINKLE taken away for a period so you can't edit war with it. As for this particular case, '''endorse''' Ryan's actions here. ➔ ''']''' says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Ive been following this. I support ryans actions here as well. ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::'''Please note:''' this was not opened due to ryan's actions at all. I've opened this only to recieve clarifications regarding the use of the tool.
:::I think there needs to be a clear clarification regarding "do not use while in content dispute" issue - since it is not clearly noted by "you take full responsibility" text given on the ] page... It was my understanding that I should not 'abuse it for malicious' conduct and therefore I used it to 'speed up my editing', I did use it while in editorial conflicts (full edit summaries) because it was unclear that it is not allowed. The issue of 'edit warring' is unrelated but since you've brought it up... a little while ago I () that ] has been using the admin rollback tool on me in clear content disputes and the issue was ignored... To be frank, I have since changed my editing style a little since it created a misunderstanding of policies. I'm not asking to shorten my Twinkle time-out - only to see that there is clear explanation on future use of twinkle (and admin tools) for everyone, me included. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::The policies are not unclear, and you're missing the point of what's been said. There's no specific policies regarding certain actions that are or are not allowed with Twinkle and other ]. The requirement is that you take complete responsibility for whatever you do with them. It's not about the tools, it's about you. If you do something that's a violation of policy, such as edit warring, vandalism, etc., you can be punished. If you're doing the policy violations with automated tools, such as Twinkle, one of the punishments available is the loss of your ability to use those tools. It has nothing to do with the type of tools or specific actions taken. You just have to follow the wikipolicies, and if you don't, you can be punished in a variety of ways including losing the ability to use any wikitools you were using to speed up or assist in your improper editing.
::::Clear now? ] (]) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I haven't went over all the twinkle edits, but i'm somewhat/fairly sure i've not used it for the purpouse of edit warring... i've been explained on a problematic revert on ] where a reversion of a misuse of the article page partially included a content dispute and therefore I should not have used the tool.
:::::I still believe that there should be some explanation on the ] article, otherwise - the only implication is that of malicious use.
:::::btw, what is the point of having the "good faith" if the tool is only meant for vandalism?
:::::p.s. do these rules apply also for the admin rollback?
:::::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I've never understood the point of Twinkle's "revert good-faith edits" function. The edit summary it leaves sounds like saying "I'm slapping you in the face with a trout, but I'm being polite while doing so". --] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Hahaha, I love that comparison. I think it's kind of for user's who make test edits or something, but look like they tried to contribute positively, not knowing anything about Misplaced Pages... vandalism was done, but not trying to bite the newbies, so trying to be nice about their try? ''']]''' 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::This is the source of my confusion as there's no clear indication on the twinkle page. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I could use some more opinions on this page, which i came across during a recent changes patrol. The page has got some pretty massive copyright violations going on. The entire history section, which is huge, seems to have been copy and pasted, and not just from one source, going through and googleing random paragraphs came up with several exact matches to different places, i think much of the page is copied from , , and to name a few. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, my first thought was to speedy tag it, but that didn't seem appropriate, then i considered blanking the sections, except there is such much copyvio, its difficult to tell which bits to removed. Any thoughts?--] (]) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:The editor who added all this content was {{User:Smulthaup}}, who, at a glance, could do with some of his other edits reviewing too--] (]) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::The first reference () and the second reference () were published in 1905 and 1883, respectively, so they're out of copyright. The others are presumably subject to copyright. From reading the article in general, though, the history section looks too large and overwhelming for a town of 2773 people. To address copyright concerns and to address the weightiness of the history section, I'd suggest working with the editor to summarize the content and to cite copyrighted (or non-copyrighted) sources. I don't think this is really an admin matter -- it's just a matter of good editing practices. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, it looks like {{user|Smulthaup}} hasn't been active since October, and he was already told about the need to cite sources. If you're looking for a new project, I have a suggestion for an article you could edit. :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Boggle ==

See this . Where's my money? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a price list available? ➔ ''']''' says: at the third stroke the time will be 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::I think they need that ] ] information... ] (]) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Is this lucrative? I'm not opposed to selling out... &mdash; ]'']'' 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:{{{1|}}}|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::{{{1}}}
----
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->

== ]' comments on my talk page ==

I am growing really, really uncomfortable with John Reaves' on my talk page in regards to being granted non-admin rollback. It looks like he has a point to prove but I am really feeling very uncomfortable being used to make that point. I'd appreciate some help. ] (]) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Bstone, it really doesn't look like John Reaves is doing anything wrong here?? What specifically are you complaining about? Anyways, --] 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Whether or not I agree with his John Reaves's comments or not is irrelevant, but unless it is a process like ], rollback is hardly something that gathers consensus from the community - there were concerns raised, but someone changed their mind and gave you rollback.
::I can understand it if you feel uncomfortable but he is merely voicing his opinion. You are honoured to have rollback and John Reaves thinks it is not an honour, and I think we should leave it at that. (Non-admin) <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">] ]</span></span> 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Also, after noting his (Reaves) comments, just archive or delete them as you see fit. Anyways, congrats on the roll back feature, I guess :) Cheers, --] 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I very much do not appreciate him trying to make a point and needing him to voice his opinion on my talk page. I am incredibly uncomfortable with his comments and it seems he wouldn't stop. Thus I reported it here in an effort to have him cease his comments and making me incredibly uncomfortable. ] (]) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::If you wanted him to stop, you could have just said on his talk page that you didn't want him to reply. He's just discussing stuff with you, and there's nothing to be uncomfortable about here. JohnReaves &mdash; he doesn't want to be talked to about it this so let's just leave it at that. I'm marking this as resolved to avoid drama and stuff that threads with titles like this inevitably attract.--]]] 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>


== ΚέκρωΨ Need to be Banned! ==

He is consistently poisioning Misplaced Pages with his racist and hatered and is not adhiring to NPOV. View his dialogue from the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macedonia_%28terminology%29

'''"In the interests of free speech, I reserve my right to "offend" anyone I see fit on talk pages, including Skopjans. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)'''

And Macedonians reserve the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to themselves. And everyone else reserves the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to Macedonians. BalkanFever 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
And they already do, persistently and throughout Misplaced Pages. So what's your beef? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is we don't have to bring it up every time someone says Skopjan and FYROM are offensive, because they are two different forms of offense. One comes from being called something, one comes from hearing/reading something. BalkanFever 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Exactly; we don't have to bring it up every time. This whole thread started when a now banned Skopjan editor was "offended" by my use of that word. And then your newcomer пичка felt it had to proffer its "constructive" 2¢ as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) "'''
For those of you who don't know "пичка" literally means "Pussy" but more directly is equilivant to the F-WORD!!{{unsigned|207.236.136.2}}

:Yeah, thanks for that. If you'd read the thread more thoroughly, you'd know I was directly quoting an earlier abusive post by another editor who'd used the Slavic word "пичка" as part of an ] (]) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Admins willing to grant rollback ==

To cope with the inevitable demand for this over the next days, admins may wish to consider adding themselves to ]. Thanks.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Not really necessary, as we have ] <sub>→]]</sub> 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Of course! Why do something simple when we can create a bunch of hoops to jump through and endless bureaucracy to maintain the hoops? Silly Doc. --] 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::While we're at it, I'll go and create ], ], ] and ]. ''']''' ('']'') 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, the first one might be redundant to ] and ], but maybe you should. The last one you note sounds like it might work just as well as requests for adminship. ;-) --] 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::My point is such pages are unnecessary. We don't need a category for goodness sake. If admins want to grant rollback, they can. If they don't, they don't have to. Simple as that. ''']''' ('']'') 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: Uh... yeah. Doc, you were the one who complained this process would result in endless bureaucracy, and so far it is ''you'' that has been responsible not only for this but for two other needless process pages which have both been deleted – ] 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Those pages were me making a point, and I am sorry for that. This is me trying to find constructive ways to minimise the bureaucracy which is already evolving on the RFR page. I was chased away for using the wrong ticks.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Constructive ways, by complaining the whole thing is bureaucratic, and creating even more bureaucratic pages with a request for bureaucratic limits on who can have rollback? ''']''' ('']'') 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good idea Majorly. And I just got rollback! Thanks wimt :-)--]]] 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oh, good grief! ] said above "I opposed this on grounds of more process", and then adds more process. Is there a glimmer of chance that in granting use of rollback we might just ] here?--''']''' (]) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::More process? Where? I just see a category for people who will respond to requests. I can't imagine much of a simpler thing than that. ] ] 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::And what, exactly, is wrong with a page that fulfils the same purpose? ''']''' ('']'') 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Nothing. I am not opposing that page. But I'm flagging up that admins can grant it besides the page too. I've granted a few requests already.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::(ec) Yeah, that. It's quite common with a new process that people may try a few different ways. Sometimes, over time, one way emerges as the most common. Sometimes, we retain multiple approaches for quite some time. ] ] 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories scale far more efficiently than pages. They don't need to be archived, nor do they generate much discussion. A request page will eventually grow so as to require sub-pages, archives (bot-archived), and endless fighting over process. It's starting already. I don't see much need for a request page, unless we're going to turn it into a clone of RfA, which sounds evil and bad. Let's avoid the bureaucracy, just this once. ] ] 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Too late :( --]<sup>g</sup> 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::]. --] 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been terribly impressed with a lot of what's been going on lately, regarding ], and, how the situation's been handled by some involved parties, but, I gotta say, I like the category idea. So much so, that I've added myself to it as well. As Mackensen said above, it scales a lot better, than a page, there's less process, and, less to do overall, to grant / etc. IMO, it somewhat encourages shopping for the right admin, but, it just might work. Great idea, Doc! :) ]] 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
*On the other hand, we supposedly trust our admins; if one admin is prepared to be bail for a non-admin with rollback, then that's good enough for me. ] ] 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Any trademark experts? ==


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
An editor is expressing concerns at ] that ] is subject to trademark, and can therefor not be used freely, even though the image itself is licenced under CC-BY-SA. He keeps removing the image from the template. I have been trying to explain to him that trademark is not subject to ] policy, as trademark is not covered. I want some expert opinion on this issue... I am certain the concerns are misplaced, as I explained on the talkpage. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:14, 10 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)}}
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.
:There was an issue recently (I'll be damned if I can find it) about photographs of toys being copyvios. But, as a very general rule, 2d images of 3d things are not subject to our FU provisions. ➔ ''']''' is standing in the dark 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::(ec)Ah ha! ] ➔ ''']''' is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but the toys were copyrighted, the police box is not. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::If anyone owns it' it's probably the ]. --''']''' (]) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::No. Quite famously, the copyright (or trademark, one or the other) on the police box design is held by the BBC. With a lovely ''(C) 1963'' on merchandise, too. ➔ ''']''' is standing in the dark 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Indeed. It's .--''']''' (]) 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:(ec)IANACL, but the <nowiki>{{logo fur}}</nowiki> template applies to trademarks equally as to logos. Just my 2c. --''']''' (]) 21:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::(ec)FU provisions don't apply to the template namespace. ➔ ''']''' is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 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 ].
To clarify the matter, let me reitterate that this is not a copyright problem, but purely dealing with trademark... Something the editor that removed the image keeps forgetting. The trademark may be intelectual property of the BBC, but there can be no trademark infringement as Misplaced Pages does not run a business selling TARDIS/Doctor Who related products or services. The photograph is of a 3D object, the trademark however is only of the 2 dimensional representation of the TARDIS; see as registered by the BBC. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:The approach taken on Commons (and presumably here too) is that we are concerned with copyright not trademarks. Images that are free of copyright may be hosted and used provided that they are free of copyright even if they are a registered trademark - for example Commons includes the Coca-Cola logo. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it is the way such images have been handled to date. Trademarked images can be tagged with {{tl|trademark}}. So if the image is free of copyright, it can be used - bear in mind that a photo of a subject otherwise free of copyright will itself attract copyright if a creative process was used in producing it by the photographer- e.g. lighting, angle etc. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
Actually there ''is'' a copyright issue with images of toys. I can't find it right now, but this was an issue with an image I uploaded a long time ago of an action figure; it had to be deleted from the Wikimedia Commons because although the image itself was appropriately licensed, the appearance of the toy was protected by US copyright law (under which Misplaced Pages operates). Technically it's counted as a three-dimensional "work of applied art", which the ] defines as "two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, technical drawings, diagrams, and models." Toys were ruled to be copyrightable in . A photo of a copyrighted three-dimensional object is thus potentially a copyright violation, ''unless'' the object in question is incidental to the subject of the photo. Hence a photo of a child playing with a TARDIS would not be a copyright violation, as the child rather than the TARDIS is the subject of the photo; but a photo of a TARDIS on its own would have copyright problems. in the ] magazine explains the legal position (see in particular the "Incidental background" section). I'll wait and see what other people say, but as a Commons admin I'm inclined to delete this image as a probable copyvio. -- ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
:Presumably this particular image raises questions about whether the "police box" design is copyrightable. I have no knowledge of the particulars of this case mind you. A deletion discussion about the image might be the best way for everyone to air their concerns. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 01:30, 11 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."
::The original design may or may not have been copyrighted (probably not, since I doubt anyone in the US was interested in marketing British police boxes!). However, I'd think the toy version would very likely be covered by the copyright law. -- ] (]) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
:Agian: The BBC does not hold copyright, only trademark. So why does everyone bring up copyright? The box cannot be copyrighted; it is not designed by the BBC. The prop is built by them, but it is an non-copyrightable (public) design. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:50, 11 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''
Actually, there's another issue here, which is whether the specific police box in question here is copyrightable because it is a prop created for the television show. Even absent considerations of the overall design of the box, the trademark status, etc, that's a major issue. I replaced the image with a photograph of a police box on the street, which surely carries no copyright problems and is still a fine illustration. ] (]) 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
:It is hidious! I still stand by my position that there is no copyright problem (it's a photo of a stage prop) and that trademark cannot be infringed. But we can speculate as long as we want... I'd rather have definitive answers. Is there anybody in the foundation that we can ask? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.


---
== ] ==
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I'm requesting this again, since the last time I requested this, I didn't not sufficiently explain the situation, which might've caused everyone to skip it.


: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)
] caused ] to take place, which turned up "likely" that ] has used the account ] for abusive purposes. Both accounts may need to be blocked. --] <small>]</small> 22:54, 10 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)
:I've blocked a related IP. If another administrator does not assist with this case, I will have to take this case. However, as this is really my first SSP case, I'll probably mess it up. --''']''' (] ]) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
== ] ==


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
This person appears to be violating ]. Again. Which is also primarily what his contributions consist of. Could this be looked into once more, please? Thanks. --] (]) 00:44, 11 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)
==AfD open 20 minutes, closed by nonadmin==
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
Someone want to have a look at ]? Thanks. -- ]] 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::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.
:Reverted. People who have commented on debates should not close them. —''']''' 01:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:(ec)Whoo! This is clearly an experienced user with a grasp of policy, despite this account being less than 48 hours old. Question is whether it's a user who should be here or not. --''']''' (]) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::My thoughts exactly. I don't care one way or the other on the AfD outcome but that raised red flags quickly. -- ]] 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
{{od}}
:::Jeez! This was a good faith edit. Please review the discussion and decide yourselves whether it has a chance of being deleted. I was just trying to save some time by being bold in a very obvious situation, hardly a crime. ] (]) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (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.
::Did we call it a crime? --] <small>]</small> 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:There's no harm in keeping a discussion open for at least a few hours, preferably a day, and waiting for an uninvolved participant to close it. Even where the article really is a speedy keep, the drama caused by non-admins closing discussions isn't worth the fuss. If it really is such an obvious case the article is going to be kept either way. Patience, patience. ] (]) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see ] article ] as an obvious keep, rather it's an obvious delete, IMO. There are serious notability issues with the sources provided, as I explained in the AfD. However, I totally agree that any AfD should not be closed by an involved editor, even if it is an obvious ] and/or ] close. I do ] that the closing editor meant well, so, no, it's not a crime. Editors disagree all the time here, it's part of the process. Just don't take it personally. — ] (]) 05:52, 11 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)


::No I don't take it personally, but all of this "should this user be here or not" and "raising red flags" just didn't sound like AGF to me, when all I had done was close a discussion that could very easily be reverted. That's all. ] (]) 16:19, 11 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)
== Slander Question ==


* 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)
Recently, I saw ] message at my talk page, in reference to this ]. Is it something that Misplaced Pages needs to be involved with (ie:ComCom)? I tend to stay away from Wiki legal issues, so excuse me for my unfamiliarity. Just thought it would be better to error on the safer side of asking for a second opinion. Thanks! ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*: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)
:This is not a matter for editors, but the Foundation's legal team, and I have advised user on his talk page. --''']''' (]) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have removed the section in question. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:10, 11 January 2008 (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)
== Edit war between several users and ] ==
* 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=]}}.
Last month, {{User|Rothchild}} added ] and ] to the "See also" section of ]. On January 9, after someone reverted this arguably humorous but nevertheless blatantly POV edit, Rothchild reverted it back and, for good measure, added "Tin-foil hat" under the "See also" section of the Alex Jones article. Then in the Talk page of the Tin-foil hat article, the user said, "I was about to add the Ron Paul campaign but I keep KISS in mind." Several reverts were made back and forth by myself and others. We explained to Rothchild that the edits were POV and inappropriate.
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
Today after I noticed Rothchild had reverted back again, I said in the Talk section, "I think Alex Jones is loony too, but Misplaced Pages articles are no place for my opinion," and then I deleted the whole "See also" section, as it was irrelevant. I also fixed the Alex Jones article. Rothchild quickly reverted both back and replied, "Just because Alex Jones seems to be your hero does not mean you have to keep reverting my edits."
{{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)
Rothchild is showing clear troll behavior and is making repeated bad-faith, POV edits and reverts. The passage of several weeks time between Rothchild's initial edit and the revert did not deter the user, as he or she seems to be watching the articles closely so as to quickly revert any edit.
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
I don't know what do do at this point, so I'm turning here for help. --] (]) 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{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 ==
:Rothchild , but I reverted...I have not formed an opinion on the dispute as of yet. &mdash; ]'']'' 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}
:I've left a warning on his/her talk page--the edits are clearly disruptive. Additionally, edits like & are inappropriate. Further disruption may merit a block. &mdash; ]'']'' 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Skylights has been clearly wikistalking me. I am new to wikipedia and I don't feel welcome here.--] (]) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You're new, and yet you know terms like wikistalking and sock puppet. If I had to guess, I'd say it's you who is a sock puppet, and it's you who was wikistalking me when you came here and deleted this section. You'd feel more welcome here if you made quality contributions instead of trolled.--] (]) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::My brother has been trying to get me into Misplaced Pages and he edits here all the time. He told me that your what defines a Wikistalker. But seriously though. Just drop it. It was a simple link and you started to cry ZOMG VANDALISM!!!! You completely missed the theme and the tone of the article and my additions were a perfect fit. There's more important things in life then making a big deal over a link. I hope you feel so much better about your self for making Misplaced Pages such a safe place.--] (]) 07:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


BTW, I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum for this dispute, but someone had removed all the explanatory info at the top of the page when I posted this section. Anyway, what do you advise regarding the edit war in question? I believe that he/she will just revert back.--] (]) 07:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think there might be sockpuppetry, but without further evidence we can't link this user to any blocked or banned user, so that may be a dead end. However edit warring over unrelated items in a section is trolling, I recomend that a block be issued if the situation persists. - ] 08:07, 11 January 2008 (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)
===Rothchild blocked===
Continued disruptive behavior, in my opinion. Blocked for 48hrs. I'm signing off, so any admin may overturn if he or she wishes... &mdash; ]'']'' 08:09, 11 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)
Thank you to the admins who helped in this situation.--] (]) 08:11, 11 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)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Image on ] ==
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
In the past couple of days three different images have appeared on the entry for Adolf Eichmann. I'm simply not well versed enough on the fair use rules to tell which, if any, of the three should actually be used. has a fair use tag on it, is a scan of a book cover, and the is a free image but of inferior quality. Can an admin with some knowledge of how fair use should be applied here help sort this out? ] 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:yes,can an admin see which one of these is best qualified to exist on wikipedia??thanks ] (]) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::The third image, ], is probably best, for two reasons. First, it's a free image, released into the public domain as a document of the US Federal Government. Second, it shows the subject in his military uniform, which is related to almost everything in the article (given that the subject appears to be a Nazi war criminal of some note). Free images are almost always preferred over similar fair use images, and the book cover refers to a work that is mentioned only briefly in the article. The casual image is a better resolution - but, again, the free image should be preferred in most cases. Hope this helps, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:In regards to the second image, please familiarize yourself with ] #8. We can't use copyrighted book covers for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the cover. We can only use book covers to illustrate the book cover in the context of critical commentary about the item.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, it has to be three - three is currently used in the article and the other two are deletion nom'd as unused fair use images. Situation seems to be resolved for the moment. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed - number three it is! :-) ] <small>]</small> 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
One user is continually re-inserting the unfree image - given the circumstances, it'd probably be best if someone else could take him aside and explain how things work. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
==Removal of auto-generated deletion summaries==
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Recently, in the middle of the discussion at ] (but not as a result of it), all auto-generated deletion summaries were removed. These are the pre-filled log summaries which say, "''Content was ... and the only contributor was...''" which admins can still change before deletion. A few admins have complained about the removal, including myself, though there hasn't been any overwhelming continued objection there seems to be only one person in favour of removal. I think few people are aware of what has happened. At first the summaries were replaced with "-", then they were replaced with "no reason for deletion was given", now the auto-generated summaries have been restored again, perhaps accidentally, by removal of content from ]. It's all a bit disorganised at the moment. There is currently a ] to get the auto-generated summaries put somewhere else on the deletion page instead of the log summary. I've raised it here so admins are aware of the change and any discussion about it, and to get more input. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
:I am in favor of the auto-generated summary ("content was $1"). The argument against it seems to be that some sysops ''might'' include un-deletable libel in their deletion summaries, but I don't think that is a real issue (are there seriously still admins doing this? Why haven't they been desysopped already?) We should also delete ] to get the old behaviour back for pages with just one editor. ] (]) 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)




As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br>
==A question about bibliographical data==
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)
{{resolved}}
I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the ] article it is stated:


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)
<blockquote>
Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.
</blockquote>


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?
::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 ==
Thank you in advance for your time.


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.
Best regards,


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)


== Call for mentors ==
--] (]) 14:30, 11 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)
:Please take this to ]. —] (]) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (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)
: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 ]==
::I just did. Thank you.--] (]) 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
== ] ==


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
Can we please have some more sensible eyes? I've blanked+protected the main voting page due to edit-warring, but the talk page is descending into one massive flamewar, with arrant nonsense being frequently added - so please feel free to go for some aggressive refactoring. It all got so bad we're off to a ''draft poll''. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I am profoundly confused as to what happened to the votes. I just went to check to see the number of votes for each proposal and I see the page has full protection and a picture of a cat? This is descending into utter silliness. ] (]) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::It's utter madness, I can't understand why people is still arguing about it, it's not like it matters! I would suggest everyone just stop complaining about anything that has to do with rollback, and just let it be as it is now. If someone acquires rollback and is using it to do vandalism, then that person will be blocked, or if less severe, will loose the rollback bit. Also as a point is that I will in a near future change Twinkle to only use the built in rollback, so at that point, loosing rollback privilege will effectively disable twinkle rollback as well. <sub>→]]</sub> 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I find it incredible that we now have a community consultation process to start a community consultation process to implement the results of a community consultation process. Rollback really shouldn't be this controversial. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
How do I send this protected article to afd please? Grounds: nn, v, rs, blp. Also listed at ] - ] (]) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Heritage Foundation ==
:I've added the AfD template to ]. You can go ahead and complete the AfD nomination now as it's only the main article that's protected. For future reference, ] explains the normal process to use. Cheers, ] ] 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Have I completed it correctly? ] (]) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Looks fine to me. - ] (]) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
==]==
{{resolved}}
I have previously made ] at ANI about this article, which is almost entirely original research and has failed an AfD in this form. I had originally placed a wiktionary redirect template per the results of that AfD, but those edits were reverted to the original article without explanation. I then tried to remove the original research from this article, but those edits were reverted for "near blanking" of the page. I would request that an administrator reinstate the wiktionary redirect and permenantly protect this page to prevent the reinsertion of this material. Thank you. ] (]) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you! ] (]) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


== Deleted contributions request ==
I have redirected to the original location agreed at the AFD and recorded the fact that a redirect was agreed ar DRV. I have invited combatants who wish to restore the article to create a draft ''with sources'' in user space and submit this to DRV for approval. I also protected the redirect. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
: Can I get you to restore it to the appropriate Wiktionary soft redirect instead? The redirect currently points to a Wiktionary soft redirect, and all the multitude of internet slang pages that were redirected to that list have since been converted to soft redirects. As it currently stands, it is effectively a double redirect. An example of the soft redirect page can be found at edit from back in November of the same article. (I could do it myself, but don't want to step on your toes) - ] (]) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (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)
{{done}} ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:00, 11 January 2008 (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)
== Mentor needed for resocialising problem user ==
::@]: 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 ] ==
Can someone please head over to ] and have a look if they could act as a kind of mentor for a somewhat problematic case? This is the former anon user "Dodona", lately known as serial sockpuppeter {{user|PIRRO BURRI}} (]), trying to negotiate a comeback. The problem has been that over almost a year (or longer? I forget) he has been plaguing talk pages with rather confused, persistent rants, trying to push some weird ethnic fringe ideas about ] being descended from ] and therefore really ], and actually better Greeks than the Greeks themselves, or something to that effect. He used to be unstoppable, and both his English and his grasp of scholarly literature is abominable. I'm a sceptical, but maybe I'm a bit too involved to make these decisions alone. Anybody willing to watch him? ] ] 16:26, 11 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)
There are requests to be added to the list of users that are more than 24 hours old on ], and the page stated that in these circumstances, a polite message here would be a good thing, resulting in a cheery admin's arrival to sort it all out. So, dear friends, here is such a message! ]&nbsp;] 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:12, 8 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)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 23 0 23
    TfD 0 0 0 0 0
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 8 0 8
    RfD 0 0 41 0 41
    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)

    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)

    Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

    VENUE CORRECTED Now at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    You should report this at WP:COIN. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unclear policy

    Asked and answered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    If an RfC about policy -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.

    For disclosure this is about this RFC on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and this follow-up, about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how absolutely wild it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, which is something existing policy actually tells you, explicitly, to do!, and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.

    I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.
    This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of WP:5P (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously so important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (which is also policy). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.
    There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. Liz 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? GiantSnowman 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. —Compassionate727  19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think you should move this complaint to WP:ANI. You will get better response there. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think Liz's comments are spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    "More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. Liz 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)

    Personal attacks by User:Remsense

    The OP needs to let go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I was instructed to report this here.

    The editor in question: Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
    • Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
    • Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY.
    • Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH.

    2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    (For the record, I will not be participating in any WP:DR process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    You were not instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    IP, just drop the stick. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you blocked per WP:BOOMERANG, as you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. Codename AD 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Johnuniq: After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at WP:AN/3 was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.

    If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?

    @Phil Bridger: You were not instructed to report this here. Yes I was. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.

    @Codename AD: DROPTHESTICK The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.

    you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.

    Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Happy New Year!

    Happy New Year to all editors on this project! Liz 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! Ahri Boy (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! Liz 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RM completion request

    Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Please carry out the moves at Talk:Minsk District. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. JJPMaster (she/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Doing... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    And done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    File:L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat, Complete.webm

    Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yann, I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now. — Masem (t) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    an obstacle to translation

    This does not require administrator intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I was going to translate the article 2022 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (user:Ahri Boy)of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. Arbabi second (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    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)

    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)
    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

    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)
    Category: