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 02:21, 17 February 2008 view sourceSwtpc6800 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,137 edits →Suggestion for reprogramming: How hard is it?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:33, 11 January 2025 view source Asilvering (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators37,750 edits →Block appeal for []: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<div align="center">{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}</div>
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
|algo = old(7d)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|counter = 368
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|counter = 126
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}} }}
--><!--
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
__TOC__
=Current issues=
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->


----------------------------------------------------------
== Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable ==
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>
{{archivetop}}
This thread was started as a discussion to the problem of making pages undeletable by adding useless revisions and quickly morphed into another 'ZOMG Betacommandbot is rouge' thread, going as far as to make the asinine claim of a faceless, inhuman bot being capable of stalking and harrassment, doing what it is supposed to do. If there is a problem, report complaints of the bot to Betacommand, don't rush to WP:AN, WP:AN is ''not'' a complaints department. If there is a legitimate problem, and Betacommand has not addressed the issue, feel free to start a new thread. — ] ] 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
----
Just FYI: . And I'm sure Tim's not the only one. --]&nbsp;(]) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


==Open tasks==
:Fully support Tim's comment. The history of the Main Page is a joke. - ] ] 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
<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 ==
::While I'm sure this was done with good intentions... boy, this strikes me as spectacularly bad judgement. It also highlights a function that could be used in ways less benevolent. This ignores the fact that the Main page appears to have been deleted once *(Per CSD G6!) in the process, albiet briefly. I'm a new admin, so maybe there's conversation on this topic I've missed... But, I have to agree with Tim's comments. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
:::] has already blocked ] for one week, due to "abuse of system resources". - ] ] 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
::::Ok, so how did BCB, a non-admin bot, edit a protected page. I'm seeing some odd things going on in the page history with restoring deleted edits, etc. And shouldn't something like this get approved somewhere before its done? Isn't this the purpose of ]? I know there is a technical switch that would make the main page undeletable by anyone including the devs, which isn't flicked since we don't want to do anything that can never be undone. So this is basically doing that (aking it undeletable) the way I see it, which is somewhat against consensus IMHO ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::The edits were made in userspace and the page was moved by an administrator into the mainspace. ] 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Was this discussed anywhere beforehand? --] 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Nope, no approval and no consensus that this was need - a well deserved week long block. The main page history is destroyed now. ] 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Isn't there some way to selectivly delete prior revisions like oversight but not as extreme). If it cant be automated, maybe hand-deleting (oy!) will be required. Worst case, there might be a consensus to oversight the interjected edits (yea I know its against policy, but I'm not seeing the harm). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Oversight works on a single revision at a time; good luck finding an oversighter that's willing to go through 5,000 revisions by hand. ;-) ] 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::According to BCBs history, it made about 1100 of the edits to that page, still it would be an unfair burden on an uninvolved oversighter to have to do that. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I believe the whole point is that nobody other than the devs can delete pages with over 5000 edits. They'd have to be the ones to remove all of the bot edits, if I'm remembering correctly. - ] ] 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I don't see how Betacommandbot's block is any more "well deserved" than a block of the administrators who collaborated on this venture would be. All the bot did was make a bunch of null edits to a user subpage. ] (]) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Frankly, I'd have blocked the users involved as well; the administrators, in particular, are expected to consider the consequences ''before'' they do something of this sort. ] 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The admins involved obviously screwed up, but remember blocks are preventive, not punitive. --] 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It was obviously discussed ''somewhere'' beforehand. My guess is IRC. ] (]) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I think the reason the bot was blocked and the admins weren't is that 1. Tim was afraid of the bot doing this to many other pages and had to act quickly. 2. Bots go through a special process to get the BOT flag and that process allows harsher action when they mess up, Admins, generally have the grace of an RfC/AN/Arbcom discussion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
:::::::I do think blocking Betacommandbot is justified, since as far as I know, it isn't approved for this (though maybe I'm wrong, given the . At any rate, it seems like it should definitely have been discussed first ('''on''' wiki), and was probably a bad idea. Apparently, ] was the one to do the move, and it was done in his userspace. It might also make sense to block him and ]. ] - ] 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
{unindent) Tim Starling has proposed here that East 718 be de-sysoped for his behavior in this matter. What forum should this request be discussed in? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
:Not sure what the proper venue would be, but I'd assume ArbCom. Thankfully one of the devs has removed the bot's junk edits from the Main Page history. - ] ] 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
This is kind of silly anyway. Why do we restrict administrator tools like delete and protect to administrators? ''Because we trust them to know what they're doing''. We restricted deletions to pages with less than 5000 revisions because it's not obvious that it's going to break the site. This is something completely different — an administrator clicked a button that said "Delete the main page". ''An administrator should not click such a button unless they actually wish to delete the main page''. Testing is for test-wikis — this is not the sort of thing you mess about with on the main page of the 8th most used website in the world! Applying restrictions like this is '''not''' needed if we have an appropriate mechanism for distinguishing prospective administrators who know what they are doing with those who don't — or a culture of caution with regards to administrative functions. As for the use of the bot, we have a bot approvals group for a reason. I am aware that Betacommand is on it, and should know better than this. — ''']''' '']'' 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:What need has there ever been to delete the main page? Or move it? Why are the tabs even there? The delete tab is currently hidden, but why not just remove the options altogether? ''']''']''']''' 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::] seems to indicate it won't ever happen. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I think the main concern here is not with the end result (making the main page undeletable) but rather the means to get there (the apparent unilateral and unsupported move by two editors to dump 1200 junk edits into the main page) which represented an unintended exploit of a recently hacked-in safety feature and is rather an object lesson in how to use said safety feature to be disruptive. The two editors in question were NOT trying to be disruptive per se, but now it is plainly clear that one could use their means to be disruptive. I am not sure that the recommended blockings and/or desysoppings are justified or not, but this does seem like the wrong way to go about doing things. --].].] 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::I think it is actually good that there is something highly visible for compromised admin accounts to delete or vandalize. A bit of good old delete-the-main-page-for-lulz will send people searching for stewards pretty fast. The latest case was desysopped in three minutes... – ] (]) 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Bugzilla doesn't appear to have reached any sort of consensus. In fact, the page reads like more people agree that there's no need to have the option to delete the main page. Certain pages just don't need the option. Considering the delete and move tabs serve no useful purpose on these pages, and having them leaves the risk of abuse and server lockdown, why not just remove the option? Having the main page to the (currently) 9th most viewed website in the world be down for a few minutes is bad times when it's pointless and avoidable. ''']''']''']''' 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Note that Bugzilla is not consensus-based. Brion Vibber, the lead developer and Wikimedia CTO, resolved the bug as "won't fix" and then marked it closed. But that bug was filed as a request to have the feature exist and be enabled by default in the core software. A Wikimedia-specific hack (as Tim has now implemented) is a different question. I still don't think it's a good idea, for the reason I gave on the bug. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 14:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
===Vital tasks===
I seem to remember that BCB does some tasks like RFC bot's job, ] (I don't know what that is), Spamreports, ], and image renaming. What is our contingency plan for it being unable to do those tasks for a week? Yes, I know it does non-free image and orphan image work, but I'm not considering that vital given the existing huge backlogs at those areas. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know that we have a contingency plan for such things. The bot system is like the wild west. Everyone runs their own code and there is very little redundancy. I have supported for a long time the division of Betacommandbot's tasks into separate usernames instead of a single username - BetacommandBot 1, BetacommandBot 2, etc. —&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::I have no idea how complex these tasks are, but the RFC one in particular seems pressing as part of the ] process. How hard would it be for an uninvolved bot operator to code up a quick and dirty substitute? Or is there a by-hand process that explains how to replace the bot with actual editors. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::The RFC bot has somewhat complex behavior. I estimate that someone with a lot of experience with bot programming should be able to code a replacement in a day of dedicated work with no interruptions. But it would be better if the code was publicly available (I don't know whether it is). Even then, it might take a few hours for a new operator to get the code running on their machine. —&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Nope, BCB is (as of a discussion in 2007 ) proprietary code. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, ] is/was operated by ]. BCbot seems to handle this task now, though. – ] (]) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:Hell, just unblock the bot. That script isn't running anymore and Betacommand presumably knows not to run it again, so there's no reason to keep it blocked. --] 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::Well Tim is a developer and I think is an employee of the foundation under ] so that might be a consideration in unblocking. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Firstly, this is not an "office action". Do as you see fit. Rory096 says "Betacommand presumably knows not to run it again, so there's no reason to keep it blocked". I don't believe Betacommand has learnt any lessons for this, he's a stubborn kind of guy. He certainly didn't make any apologies when I was talking to him about it on IRC. If he does it again, I'll block him again. I've written the script to clean up his mess now, so it won't be so much trouble for me the second time. -- ] (]) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::In that case, we should make sure we get a promise out of him not to do it again (as he seems to have given below), and then consider actions to make sure anything like this doesn't happen again- not only exploiting some fix for some problem in an way that wasn't intended by those who implemented the fix, but also any unapproved, undiscussed bot functions, and to consider splitting BetacommandBot's functions so any one of the functions can be blocked without causing all the others to stop working. --] 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Rory096,Ive been working on seperating the accounts, its just not that simple. And Ive been pushed for other requests, see ], for the recent image re-naming. As Ive said before this was a single request, and with no future plans on repeating. ] 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
Here's some back story behind RFC bot. I came up with the idea; Betacommand wrote it for me. It exists under the MIT license at . It is ''supposed'' to run on my toolserver account, but it takes up too much memory as the result of being somewhat broken. Therefore, it goes down once it reaches the toolserver's threshold of 1GB of RAM, and it is killed off by memory management software. While Betacommand is fixing it, he is using his account (that or the bot's) to continue operations; this is not unheard of, as Betacommand's account and his bot are used as testing vectors for new versions of the software.


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?
The issue behind the bot is that objects in memory are forming too quickly without being given enough time to die off. I am going to slow the refresh rate from 5 minutes to 60 minutes to see if that will allow it to be ran on the toolserver without complication. ] (]) (]) 05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
:While I know BCB doesn't like to spread his code around, but honestly, I feel like more bots should take up some of his tasks either in case he doesn't wish to run it or a situation like this happens again. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Note from developer ===
: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)
] has sent to the wikitech-l list in which he strongly criticizes the practice of adding meaningless revisions to a page. At the very least, everyone should take away the message "don't do that". —&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I thought it was a good idea at the time ... BCBot hadn't quite added enough revisions to make the page undeletable. I have therefore . I now understand the ] issue this could cause. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 08:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
::Ah... what? That's not the point I can't understand that matters. The point I can't understand that matters is why there is so much inertia. Could this not have been discussed publicly, on-wiki? Some lessons need to be drawn from this. And Tim noting that Betacommand seems unwilling or unable to do this, well, that does not inspire confidence. ] 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think it can still be moved. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span> 10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::It can't. I just tried on ]. When you submit the form, you get a big red "''You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.''" <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span> 11:07, 4 February 2008 (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)
:::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
:::Why not let admins delete the main page? It is a canary in a coal mine, if an account is compromised or has gone berserk then they often delete the main page and lose their admin bit within 10 minutes. This is a good thing, it keeps the damage to a minimum. ] 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: There are other pages they can delete inappropriately. ] (]) (]) 23:47, 4 February 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)
=== Messiness of bot records and COI ===
Just a note on an issue that's relevant to this case: For the past several days, I've been working on the records over at ]. A brief look at through records yields the fact that they're in horrible condition, both inaccurate and out-of-date. There's also the outdated page, ]. And both of these records don't likely match up with the list of users with a bot flag.


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This makes it practically impossible for admins to keep track of bot abuse.
: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)
::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::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)
:::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)
::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Overall, there appears to be a COI with ]:
*The bot approvals group are required to be bot owners or programmers themselves, so naturally, they tend to be liberal about handing out bot privileges and ''may'' turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, or defend it (that's a speculation -- not an assumption -- of bad faith). Though they take into account the community's commentary, they still have a leading role.
*The bot approvals' group primarily maintains the bot records. Well, again, why should they care about maintaining good records? If they don't, then it's a lot easier to get away with this kind of thing.


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that cleaning up the records and a thorough review of all users flagged or listed as bots would yield the fact that there's more bot abuse going on than people are aware of. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
:I don't want to sound like a beancounter, but maybe we could audit the active bots on the project. There should be a list of everyone with a bot flag somewhere, as well as the list of registered bots. We sent a talk page comment to every operator and bot on both lists: "Hey, we're updating records, please update the status of your bot '''here'''. If we don't hear from you in a week (or whatever), your bot will be listed as inactive." Whether inactive bots are de-flagged, blocked, or otherwise noted is up to consensus - but, I'd recommend that the operator checks in and updates status before resuming his/her bot's operations. This might also be a good chance to audit approved functions that current bots no longer do, so we can identify functions that other bots might pick up. Just tossing out an idea or two, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::It seems to me that most complaints about bots are not in line with policy, and those that do are dealt with promptly. ] 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Topic ban appeal ==
::: I agree that they are often dealt with quickly but, in some instances, it seems that the previous intervention does not preclude future issues from the same bot operator. Which is frustrating, at best. --] 21:10, 4 February 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)
::You can get a list of flagged bots from special pages. I'm sure if you offer to compare with the Status and Registered Bots pages, and the user contributions of those bots, and invite updates where needed, the bot community would welcome it. ''] ]'', 14:37 ] ] (GMT).


: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)
:Just a note- the opposite of assuming good faith is not assuming bad faith, it's not assuming good faith. Speculation of bad faith is, therefore, violating AGF just as much as an assumption of bad faith would be. That said, you could have made the same points you just did while at the same time assuming that everyone's acting in good faith. --] 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
Ah, yes, you're right, Rory. Sorry. Yes, I am probably just being paranoid. On the bright side, it did make for a neat addition to ].
{{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)
Still, at the very least, I'm right about the bad record-keeping, just wrong on the lack of ]. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 04:17, 5 February 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 ==
:The record keeping on approvals is pretty good last time I looked. But the status page relies on bot operators to update it, which if they go-away, die, just plain forget, whatever, is not always going to happen. ''] ]'', 14:37 ] ] (GMT).
"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 ===
===Summary===
:: <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>
Trying to summarise the above:
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
*(1) The Main Page got deleted accidentally after a "joke" discussion on IRC led someone to test the assertion that the Main Page couldn't be deleted. See ].
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
*(2) Some other off-wiki discussions led to two users (an admin and a bot operator) to implement a workaround to prevent this in future, based on the recent "5000+ revisions = can't delete" fix. They did this by having a bot do lots of null edits to a subpage (]), and then the admin (see also ), thus bring the edit count up above 5000 (well, in fact it seems they possibly fell short, and two other admins (] and ]) made some manual null edits to bring the total above 5000; one later blocked himself for doing this, see ). The bot in question was ], but the edits are no longer visible because they got removed at some deep level by developers (because the page was over 5000 edits, only developers could do this - see point 5).
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
*(3) Tim Starling found out about this (see and ) and for "abuse of system resources", and has .
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
*(4) A now means that the main pages on all WMF wikis can't be deleted or moved (regardless of how many edits they have). However, this is not a true fix. See for a process that could be used for emergency deletion.
*(5) The 'junk' revisions have been . '''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
*(6) Several other discussions are ongoing, on mailing lists and on-wiki and (presumably) elsewhere. The wiki-tech mailing list disucssion has been linked, and there is this WP:AN thread. Two others are: ], , and a .
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)
I think I have that about right. What needs to be sorted out moving forwards?
: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)
*(A) Consequences of BetacommandBot's block and how to handle the work it does.
*(B) Whether an arbitration case should be opened to handle the desysopping points.
*(C) Whether there has been abuse of a bot flag.
My views are that the block on BetacommandBot should remain, if only to force the community to face up to the consequences of a permanent block or future departure (for whatever reasons), and hence become less reliant on this (and other bots) in case things like this happen again. It is not acceptable to have bots be "unblockable" because they do "vital work". Splitting of bot functions seems well overdue. I'm not too fussed about East718's sysop flag - I don't think he will do anything like this again any time soon. ] (]) 11:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
:This isn't an RfC, but I concur with Carcharoth's summary of the issues. I would also add as a footnote that, whatever happens, I believe East718's actions were undertaken in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia (and the security of the main page). The elements of concern in my mind are the lack of discussion beforehand, not necessarily on the intent itself. I also believe that that should be taken into account during any further proceedings, if and when. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:45, 4 February 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 ==
:Of benefit to the discussion of Task A, in re: Betacommandbot's block, . I'm sure there's a more recent summary somewhere, but this might be a good place to start. The critical task I am aware of is tagging Disputed Fair Use Rationale images, but - given the active backlog on that category, adding more images to the backlog seems to be a low priority at this time. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Remove PCR flag ==
::Tim Starling made it clear above that he will accept unblocking Betacommandbot. Doing so would be the simplest way to move forward. Rewriting all the bot code would be nice, but ultimately it's probably not worth it. —&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::Probably is the simplest solution, I agree. But whoever does it needs to make clear in the log summary that bots should not be merely unblocked to carry out other tasks. Becoming indispensable through one set of bot tasks is not a free license to carry out other (unapproved) bot tasks. This is a serious concern that has been brought up in the past and never satisfactorily addressed. It is effectively the same thing with editors (eg. Giano is effectively being asked to split his functions as article writer and Misplaced Pages namespace contributor). Humans can't always be asked to split between role accounts, but bots can and should be. ] (]) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (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)
::::This is one reason I haven't unblocked the bot myself. —&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Just a note, my actions were a single one time request, that I did not think would cause as much trouble as it did. I did and do not have any plans on repeating the incident. Im am sorry that my good faithed attempt to protect the encyclopedia, caused as much drama as it did. I dont like drama. As for the source for my bots, I am willing to share it with people that I can trust. I wrote RfC bot and gladly handed that code out to a user that I know is responcible. I have also written code for other users and they have abused it, since then I only give it to people I can trust. within the next month or so I also plan on releasing the code for my image renaming script. (I need to finish testing and clean up the code). ] 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::::Betacommand, do you want to tell Tim this and ask if he will unblock the bot? Or would you prefer the community to review the block of the bot? ] (]) 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I told tim prior him blocking that that was a single event that I was not planning on repeating. But he was fairly mad at the time. if someone wants to try and talk to tim for me Id be thankful, or if the community wants to review it. ] 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


== "The Testifier" report ==
::::Of course, all this would be an excellent argument for requiring that all bots on Misplaced Pages be entirely open-source, and that this be periodically verified by someone attempting to run the bot on a test wiki and making sure it actually works as advertised. Why Misplaced Pages has not yet agreed on this I'm not sure, except to the extent that it seems never to be able to agree on anything. (Yes, yes, anti-vandal bots' source code will be open, I'm sure that will be a great aid to the huge number of vandals who are also programmers and malicious enough to spend hours analyzing twisty heuristic-based source code. The idea of security through openness is that they'll be outnumbered by the group that's identical but willing to help out by sharing any exploits they find.) Without open-source bots, it seems to me Misplaced Pages is ''asking'' to have major bot contributors get annoyed with the project and leave, or just disappear for any reason, seriously inconveniencing everyone. Actually, this has happened in the past, if I'm not wrong. How is it that The 💕 is relying so heavily on non-free software? If not for the bots and scripts that are permitted to be closed, you could come close to saying that the only proprietary software used in creating and serving the encyclopedia is routing software.<p>But I doubt this is the first time that argument has been made. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::I can't agree more with Simetrical. Moreover, publishing the code, particularly during a BRFA, allows code review by other bot owners, and several improvements : {{u|DumZiBoT}} got significantly improved by {{u|Dispenser}} during its BRFA.
:::::There is some pride in maintaining a bot, and I understand why some bot owners are reluctant to the idea of publishing their sources... However, keeping the source "secret" is not helping at all non-English wikis. From what I know, I have several examples of bots that could have been put in a great use at ], but that aren't, because the source is not available, and because English bot owners don't have time to spare for other projects... ] <font color="red">]</font> 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::NicDumZ, have you asked these bot operators about this? ] 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Positive. 'Want a concrete example ? I was thinking about SineBot : Slakr wants to develop a new tool, completely rewriting a PHP framework, and doesn't want to release SineBot's code until this is done. That's honorable, and I'm far from blaming him for this : Having such a new tool would certainly open a lot of new possibilities. However, this is taking a significant time : SineBot is running here since september... During that time, the only possibility that we, on ], have to run such a bot, is to rewrite its code, and I personally consider this as a waste of time.
:::::::I mean. I am a bot owner, and I code everyday as a living : I don't want to blame any coder for their efforts, I also by myself have a lot of troubles when someone comes, looks at my hard work, and tells me : "This part of your code is useless, delete it", or when some random guy comes and add dubious functionalities to my script. But a strong fact is that several developers working together usually develop better tools than one developer alone, and eventually, I always consider these interventions as useful and helping. Just consider how efficient is the pywikipedia community ! At some extent, that's the way wikipedia works : others sticking their noses in ''your'' articles, in ''your'' work; but eventually, "your" articles are most of time far better with the help of others... Sharing the code is an immediate way to improve it. ] <font color="red">]</font> 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::NicDumZ, Ill see what I can do about sinebot. I think your approach to the operator could use some work. ] 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for your help, even if that wasn't why I wrote this. I'm just saying that every coders have reasons not to publish their code (code cleaning, refactoring, new project, new functionalities, not enough time to maintain it/document it, and so on... ). Sometimes I just think that making a little effort to clean our botcodes to release it every week or so on one of our subpages could help *a lot* the community. ] <font color="red">]</font> 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Simetrical, your comment about vandals getting a big help from the ] is not really true. ClueBot has had its source open since its inception, and I haven't seen any vandals who have been trying to get around ClueBot. :) -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Precisely as I said. I don't believe an open-source anti-vandal bot is any problem at all. You can sometimes make an argument for ] when heuristics are used, because a lot of correlations can be avoided with some care if the subject knows they're being looked at, but this isn't such a case. The overwhelming majority of vandals aren't going to trawl through source code or even know it exists, and the tiny number who might are too clever and careful to be tricked by a heuristic-based bot anyway. They'd probably spend their time getting through a rogue admin account or something, if they were interested in their vandalism not being immediately reverted.<p>So I don't see any reason for continuing the practice of permitting closed-source bots to operate. If it were up to me, an iron-clad criterion for bot operation would be publication on the web of the live source files actually being executed by the bot as it runs, and this would be enforced retroactively after a suitable grace period. I don't, unfortunately, have the time or inclination to immerse myself in Misplaced Pages policy-mongering hell sufficiently to actually get anything resembling this agreed to, but if anyone else does, you certainly have my support. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
===Bot Tasks===
{{atop
Somewhere floating around in the back of my mind, I have a recollection that the Bot Approval Group has to approve new tasks on Betacommand Bot. Or maybe I'm mixing that up with something else... can someone confirm/deny that? I think it has bearing on this: if such a requirement exists, and it was ignored, then we have a problem. If not, and I'm confused (which is more and more likely every day) then someone should feel free to strike through this section. ;-) The link I'm concerned with is ], but I may be misinterpreting it. - ] &#124; ] 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:that was related to the mess back early last year. approval for those tasks were rejected and I had to re-file. bots are usualy exempt from needing approval for user subpage editing. ] 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
}}
::OK, I didn't know they were exempt from needing approval for user subpage editing. Thanks for explaining that. Cheers. - ] &#124; ] 16:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I am not aware of any such exception. Can you point me to the location of this guideline? <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::It's not part of the guideline, as far as I'm aware, but neither is every single task completed or to be completed in Misplaced Pages. It has been allowed in the past at reasonable rates, mostly for statistics and record-keeping, but Betacommand's actions were neither at reasonable rates nor, uh, sane (although in good faith). ]<sup>]</sup> <span title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard">§</span> 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Betacommand, were you aware that the edits, even though made to a user subpage, were going to be moved by East718 to the page history of ]? If so, then I'm afraid your excuse is the flimsiest and most disingenuous one I've ever seen. It is absolutely clear that any bot would need approval for a task to make edits to the main page. I see that ] are having elections at the moment, but this is something they will need to discuss as a matter of urgency. ] (]) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've thought about this more, and I'm disappointed in Betacommand's reasoning here. Given that the task was run in userspace with the sole purpose of then affecting the main space, I think this reasoning is a cop-out. I believe the task should have been cleared through BAG and anything else is unacceptable. Betacommand knew that this was to be used on mainspace, and found a way to work around BAG restrictions. - ] &#124; ] 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:And from a BAG member at that. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;] ]</span> 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Eh? I'm not a BAG member - and neither is Betacommand. Or do I misunderstand? - ] &#124; ] 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Betacommand has been reinstated as a BAG member since December ] ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Good lord, I gotta re-watchlist that page. See what I miss? - ] &#124; ] 05:13, 6 February 2008 (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)
===The next step===
I believe Carcharoth has laid out the problem here perfectly, but I'm concerned about where we're going now. East and Betacommand have yet to comment on the issue, and until then I believe an ArbCom case with what we have is overkill. I'd prefer to see an RFC on user conduct initiated (preferably using Carcharoth's analysis as an introduction), so both users can share their views and rationales. There is unanimous consensus among the community that their actions were wrong, let's hear their responses and let the community decide what to do next. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*Lets take a step back for a minute and consider some points. East was quite clearly attempting to help the encyclopedia with what he did, as did Betacommand. I'm sure they didn't expect the drama that arose because of it. Whilst Tim Starling is a key developer, and don't think we need to take his advice without consideration of the facts - let's not start the desysopping talk - there was no malicious intent here, and by stopping the main page getting deleted, they were doing an honourable service for the project (although they went about it the wrong way). All seems sorted now, the revisions are gone - let's just move on, we really don't need this escalating further than it already has. I fail to see how an RfC would accomplish anything. ] 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
**While I assume (and don't doubt) that Betacommand and East were acting in good faith, that doesn't mean there certainly shouldn't be any action taken. Desysopping could be necessary if it's likely something like this can happen again in the future, even if this happened in good faith. It should be discussed whether the involved users have learned from their mistakes and will be sure to have a consensus before they do controversial things like this in the future, and we should seriously discuss what to do with BetacommandBot, so Misplaced Pages doesn't rely so much on a single bot to keep things running smoothly. There are certainly things to be done, or at least discussed, even though the users were acting in good faith. --] 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*I agree with Mtmelendez. I don't have time to initiate an RfC, but if anyone does, please feel free to copy paste my summary above, and add anything else that is needed. Possibly wait until the end of the day for more responses here, and pray that no-one files a presumptuous request for arbitration. Let's see if we can get things done productively, and address issues while minimising drama (Ryan, just letting it all go doesn't address the valid issues and concerns - this is precicely the sort of things that user conduct RfCs are for - pointing out lapses of judgment and getting community opinion on said lapses of judgment - doing this sort of thing without any on-wiki discussion, as far as I can tell, was unacceptable). ] (]) 14:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
**I'm not suggesting that we let this go per se, many people have weighed in now, and I expect East realises his mistake - I just think it would be wrong to start an RfC over someone who made a good faith (yet extremely misguided) effort to help the encyclopedia. My advice would be for someone to go to Easts talk page, say that he messed up, don't let it happen again but that it is the end of it now. ] 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
***Waiting until East and Betacommand reply here is probably a good idea (but see the note below about East and the notice he has left). For the record, here is what Tim Starling said in that mailing list post: <blockquote>"East718 and Betacommand got together, and decided between themselves, apparently without review or approval by any other party, that they would add 1200 junk revisions to the main page. Betacommand edited ] the requisite number of times, and then East718 deleted the main page, moved his subpage to ], and then undeleted it to merge the histories."</blockquote> Not the best judgment call there by either of those users. As far as I can tell, neither Betacommand or East718 have responded to the messages left for them so far. East was notified as early as . That comment by MZMcBride specifically mentions IRC, and also mentions Nakon (presumably ], recently renamed). Was there an IRC discussion and decision to do all this? Also, East718 went silent for two hours after carrying out the deletions, and then made to leave the message: ''"Something's come up and I won't be editing for a while. Feel free to leave messages."'' Is it too presumptuous of me to ask what "came up" to prompt that notice? ] (]) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
** I don't see the need for an RFC just to cover a single action; just pointing out a mistake is enough feedback for an isolated incident. —&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
** Is there a pattern of bad judgement, or is this an occasional mistake? I don't see evidence of a pattern. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
***The lack of response worries me. Sometimes there is an attitude that hunkering down for a while is the best way to avoid drama. Sure, things do happen in real life to prompt people to stop editing for a while, but the impression is that sometimes the timing of such interludes is convenient. Until a fuller explanation emerges (and at that point I will be the first to apologise), the impression given is not good. In East's case, probably no pattern. Betacommand's case is more problematic. These were good-faith attempts to protect the encyclopedia, but there needs to be an open admission that they quite simply got this wrong and realise they shouldn't do this in future. ] (]) 15:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:Let's review the facts. User and Admin collude to do something that they Probably Shouldn't Do. UserBot does garbage edits to a subpage, and Admin moves it to the Main Page, thereby misusing the admin tools. The admin tools were granted on an implicit agreement to not misuse them. Solution: Sternly warn said misuser of tools, and take away UserBot's access since this is the 500th time it's done something that makes the entire community mad at it. ] (]) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::Anyone who deals with fair use images, even if it is a human, will have people knocking on their door on a constant basis, sometimes in an angry state of mind. This is the first time I noticed the bot do anything very wierd such as this. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*I've asked ] and ] to comment here, as they made the null edits to the Main Page (still visible in the ). What I want to know is how they were aware of all this and what communications were made to take these actions? I've also asked ], as he seemed to become aware very early on (he at 01:32, and the by Gurch was at 01:39). I'll ask Gurch as well how he became aware of all this. ] (]) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*:As one of the admins who made a few null edits to the main page, I've been asked to comment here. I have ] on my watchlist (and thus ]) and noticed edit. I assumed that since the page was deleted earlier, someone was trying to ensure that it wouldn't happen again. I found that the number of edits was lower than the bigdelete threshold and I made a few more to bump up the number. I apologize for any problems I may have caused. ] 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*: The Main Page was deleted. It's the sort of thing that is fairly easy to become aware of – ] 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*::As far as I'm aware, deletions don't show up in watchlists. Let me be frank. Was there an extended discussion off-wiki (be it mailing lists or IRC) before it was raised on-wiki? If so, why? ] (]) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*:::The developers aren't in the habit of hanging around ] or the administrators' noticeboard. However, they do read the mailing list. Since the mass editing was an attempt to use the deletion size limit in a way the developers had presumably not foreseen when they added the limit, I thought they should know about it – ] 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*:::One would think that recent Sandbox deletion would hint at the neccessity to discuss all these "bright" unusual ideas first ∴ ] 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*::::Gurch has explained in more detail on my talk page. I'm satisfied that the dummy edits are what attracted some people to this - but I'm still unsure how those making the null edits became aware of the deletion and page history merge and the "let's get it above 5000 revisions" plan. I just want to be crystal clear who contributed to these off-wiki discussions before during and after this incident. Ultimately, as Gurch says, it comes back to the judgment of the users in question, but I'm still (like others) worried that people just ''don't seem to be getting the message''. Off-wiki discussions, or those with a limited number of people participating, are inherently risky due to lack of review and lack of transparency. Please, please, please can those using IRC, e-mails or whatever, think next time something like this comes up? ] (]) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*:::::You're still trying to put blame on the mode of discussion. Had the handful of users involved discussed this on each other's talk pages before doing it, it still wouldn't have been any better. Conversely, if they had asked for an opinion in the #wikipedia-en channel before doing it, they would have been told not to, by me. And needless to say, if they had asked on the Wikitech-l mailing list, they would have been met with the same threat of desysopping that they have now been met with anyway. Please stop labelling all "off-wiki" discussion as bad and "on-wiki" discussion as good, because that simply isn't the case – ] 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*::::::The problem is that those who give advice in closed areas don't get shown up for the purveyors of bad advice that they are. In the Hoffman arbitration case, Moreschi commented in an ANI thread that Hoffman was "obviously a sockpuppet" - that bad advice was in the open for all to see. If that had taken place on IRC, Cuerden would have not had the ANI thread to point to and say "look, I got support for my block", but equally, the giver of bad advice would have remained in the dark. Similarly, here, we just don't know who else gave bad advice. ] (]) 18:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
* Just a small note: please do not call these ''null edits'', this is very confusing to those familiar with already established terms, see ]: null edits are not even recorded in the page history ∴ ] 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Wow. Simply incredible that so many people can make so many poor choices in the span of about 12 hours. Tim laid it all out pretty well. I wasn't able to be on IRC while this was going on, thus my post to East's talk page. Beta did a task for East; Beta's really not all too much to blame -- almost any bot user could've done the exact same thing. Alex is correct in the post above this one -- null edits ''do not'' add revisions to the database. What Beta made are called trivial or "dummy" edits. Going forward: (1) All bot discussion should go to ] or ]. This page is inappropriate for bot discussion; (2) I'm of the opinion that ArbCom and RfC are both unnecessary here; I propose that East (and perhaps Maxim and Ryan) stand for a new RfA in a week (when everyone's called down a bit). Meanwhile, I think that he / they should be barred from using any admin tools. Kudos go to Krimpet and Animum who attempted to reduce the possibility of a Main Page deletion without fucking everything up and causing all this drama. Kudos go to all of the admins who didn't unblock BetacommandBot; if there's one thing this community doesn't need, it's another sysadmin who's particularly pissed with us. --] (]) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::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 ==
Addendum: I mentioned User:Nakon and User:Betacommand in my post on East's talk page because they were the ones I could see in the ] history and they were the ones that I knew for sure are regularly in the admins channel. --] (]) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:I think MZMcBride is referring to by Krimpet. Animum undeleted the Main Page three minutes after Maxim deleted it. Presumably Maxim had noticed his mistake and was trying to undelete it, but Animum got there first. ] (]) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::When referencing Krimpet and Animum, I was referring to their edits to the global CSS files. On a side note, I completely agree with Gurch that it makes no difference whether this conversation between East and Beta occurred on-wiki or off-wiki. Had I been able to get on IRC last night, I would have immediately told them what a stupid and ill-thought-through idea it was to add null edits to the Main Page. --] (]) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::They didn't talk about it on IRC either. Well, they might have done in a private message, but not in any of the channels – ] 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
:I for one just checked out the history after the Main Page deletion to see if anything happened in the hour or so since its undeletion. I found BCBot's edits and decided to try the final push to 5,000 edits. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::And that is one of the most ironic things about the whole incident. It seems that even after doing all this, they miscounted or something, and the bot hadn't done enough edits! I mean, really, getting the number of edits right isn't ''that'' difficult is it? ] (]) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
I may have skimmed through all of the comments above, but I don't see where this has been addressed. Where was Betacommandbot authorized to do these edits? The bot should have gone through bot review to do any other tasks than what it has already been approved for. If Betacommand is adding new features to his bot without approval, he should stop, now. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
:In the subsection titled "Bot tasks" there is something about how editing user subpages is an exception. Of course, if Betacommand knew that these edits were going to be ''moved to the page history of the Main Page'' (as it seems he did), then this whole excuse disintegrates like a mass of soggy tissue paper. ] (]) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
I have made an extended comment on this situation in a ]. — ''']''' '']'' 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
===What next?===
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
It has been almost 24 hours since the deletion and page history merges by East718 took place. The following is an attempt to refocus the discussion again and see if anything remains to be done before moving on.
]
*(1) BetacommandBot remains blocked (it is a week-long block that started at some point on 4 February 2008). Betacommand has asked above if anyone will speak to Tim Starling for him, and failing that, would be happy for the community to review the block. At the moment, it seems no-one is willing to unblock, though maybe someone will put forward a good reason for unblocking. One question is whether the block is causing problems - are Betacommandbot's other functions being carried out? See also the questions below that I've posted to the ] talk page.
*(2) East718's actions - it seems that nothing much more can be done until East718 returns and responds to the concerns raised above and elsewhere. What is the normal procedure in situations like this? Leave a note on their talk page summarising what has been discussed and pointing them to somewhere (back here?) where they can respond to the concerns? How long should should someone be given to respond?
*(3) Bot actions and issues - as was pointed out above, this needs to be discussed at the various bot pages, such as ]. Betacommand is a member of BAG (the bot approvals group). I've posted the following questions over there: (a) Did this bot action need approval? (b) What are the views of ] on the block of ]? (c) How can the issue of too many functions being tied up in one bot be addressed?
*(4) The Bugzilla discussion about Main Page deletion hacks, patches and whatnot. Anyone want to summarise that? Not sure what more can be done with that other than to note the outcome somewhere if it is relevant. Most of the technical stuff seems to have been sorted or is being discussed elsewhere.
*(5) Other issues - auditing of bots (cleaning up existing records) and dealing with BetacommandBot's tasks, if needed. Again, all bot stuff. Can these issues be safely turfed over to ] and similar venues to deal with?
In summary, I think the remaining admin issues are (and we should really concentrate on these issues and not be distracted by the other ones):
*(I) The block of BetacommandBot (let it run out, or lift it early based on what Betacommand has said?).
*(II) The actions of East718 (were the following acceptable: the decision to do this, the discussion of the actions, the actions themselves, and the response afterwards). We can review the first three. The last one (the response afterwards) is not fully known yet, and will need East718 to make an on-wiki response.
Apologies if anyone feels I'm prolonging this thread. I think stuff is slowly being directed off to the correct venues to be discussed, and hopefully the above will help focus on stuff relevant to this noticeboard. ] (]) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
===Response===
:] {{hlist|class=inline
Hey, everyone. Leave for a day and look what gets stirred up. :O First off, I'd like to apologize for any disruption caused; I hope you all recognize that this was one of those things meant with the best intentions that went completely off the rails. It was a good-faith effort to lock down the main page which was messed with twice just yesterday, once by a compromised account and another time as a joke gone wrong. It was very bad form of me to just unilaterally do this, but I've always been of a mind to just get things done. In the end, it's been rather harmless as the history is now cleaned up and a permanent solution is in place. I'm not going to put up a fight if anybody wishes me to be sanctioned in some manner, but it won't be useful as I'm disappearing for a long while due to unrelated reasons.
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
BCBot should probably be unblocked, since Betacommand wasn't aware of what I was doing - I made an open-ended request for a bot account in #-admins and he just happened to be the first person to respond. It was my mistake for passing him a bot that made a bunch of garbage edits at reckless speed without informing him of its nature, although I suspect he's learned a lesson to not run unvetted code on his account.
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
One last bit of housekeeping: it's a very poorly kept secret that I run a bunch of unapproved adminbots that perform repetitive tasks so other admins can worry about ]. The most important of these is a bot that hunts down and reverts/deletes ] (aka /w or index.php) spam in real time, and blocks spam-only accounts and IPs if the spambot is running from a zombie proxy. Around 30 or so spambots are stopped daily with 10% or so being open proxies or compromised computers. Obviously I've taken it down already but can pass it on to any other admin willing to run it, just email me. ]
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
:Hi East. Thanks for the apology and for explaining what happened. Hopefully you will be around for long enough to reply to this, but if not, then I guess it will have to wait until you get back.
* 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.
::*''"It was very bad form of me to just unilaterally do this"'' - can we have assurances that you won't act unilaterally like this again?
] '''Technical news'''
::*''"I've always been of a mind to just get things done"'' - in future, will you discuss things like this before doing them? There is boldness and then there is recklessness. No harm done this time, but what about next time?
* 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.
::*''"but it won't be useful as I'm disappearing for a long while"'' - the question is whether you will repeat the misjudgments made this time round, so this thread will be useful in determining that - sure, it can wait until you get back, but the attitude that going away for a long time means that the possibility of sanctions (even if it is only a thread like this with lots of criticism of your judgment) should be discounted, is, well, rather strange.
:Then there are the three points I raised above:
::*(1) ''discussion of the actions'' - did you in fact discuss this with ''anyone''? I thought you had discussed it with Betacommand, but it seems now that you didn't.
::*(2) ''the actions themselves'' - I think it is clear now what you did - can we have assurances that you won't add dummy edits like this in future, or do page merges like this in future, without discussing it first? Especially given that Tim Starling has said he will block anyone who does this?
::*(3) ''the response afterwards'' - if you do do something unilaterally in future (boldness is sometimes good), can we have reassurances that you will make every attempt to be around in the aftermath? The notice you put up two hours later saying that something had come up is fair enough - but can you tell us what happened in those two hours? Did you see the talk page messages people had left you? Did you get lots of people asking you what had happened, and did you respond to them? Off-wiki response are all very well, but the on-wiki records just shows silence, a notice after two hours, and then this response. If you are not going to be around to deal with the follow-up to something, discuss (on-wiki) with others and maybe let someone deal with it - there was no urgency here.
:I'll let others respond to the other points, and I'll respond to the Betacommand bit in the section Ral315 started. I appreciate the image work you do, East, so I hope things do work out. If I'm happy with the above points, I won't be taking things any further, and I would hope no-one else would either. Have a nice wikibreak! ] (]) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::I have a lot of tolerance for good faith screwups, for the simple reason that, if they're truly good faith, they're unlikely to be repeated (unless the user in question is demonstrably incorrigible, which East isn't). I say we leave things were they now sit. ] (]) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:::How difficult is it for East718 (when he gets back) to take the time to answer the above? Ideally, East718 won't be the only one to learn how not to do things. Others watching this will learn what not to do in more general terms - ie. discuss first, really think about the consequences of the actions, and stay around to deal with them. ] (]) 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry, what I meant was that I was satisfied with the response, not that further questions to East were inappropriate. ] (]) 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
===Unblocking BetacommandBot?===
* 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}}.
Given that Tim's willing to let the community handle whether Betacommand should unblock, I'm wondering whether BetacommandBot should be unblocked. Clearly this was a lapse of judgment. And this isn't the first lapse in judgment that Betacommand's made. But I think that, with no permanent harm done, and Betacommand promising not to do this again, there's no reason to make him sit the block out.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
This unblock would be with the understanding, of course, that he not run bots like these without prior approval from the BAG. I'm personally willing to do this, so long as it isn't controversial; any thoughts? ] (]) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
:Bot owners are responsible for the actions of their bots. The edits were a waste of system resources and should not have been made. I hold Tim in very high esteem, and I imagine many other admins do as well. It is pretty rare that a sysadmin steps in to a situation like this and takes action; it's even more rare that revisions are then deleted from the database. Things like that generally indicate quite an error on someone's part. A week is not a very long time, and I hope this block gives people time to appreciate the work that BetacommandBot does for the community and perhaps other bot owners can write similar bots in the event that Beta someday decides to no longer be as active as he is. BetacommandBot can be out of commission for a week -- we'll live. --] (]) 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


----
:I agree with MZMcBride. Let's see how things pan out for a week. I understand the argument that East718 was also responsible, but before any unblocking, Betacommand needs to state clearly and unequivocally what lessons he has learned. For one thing, I wouldn't be happy to see BetacommandBot unblocked until Betacommand explains the following from East718 (see above): ''"passing him a bot that made a bunch of garbage edits at reckless speed without informing him of its nature, although I suspect he's learned a lesson to not run unvetted code on his account"'' Beta, did you ''really'' run <u>unvetted code</u> on that account? How much did you know of what East718 was trying to do? ] (]) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
::Just above, you state (and, I agree), that in this instance, no real harm was done. I find it REALLY hard to believe that Betacommand didn't know at least what the bot did, and, I can reasonably understand why it might have been thought to be a good idea (a good enough idea, to protect the main page from deletion, that Tim tweaked the main page to be not be deletable himself!). They were just trying to protect the project. I'm not sure, what the point of <s>punishing</s> keeping BCBot blocked for a week at this time, exactly is. ]] 13:25, 5 February 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.
:::I'll repeat myself: ''"before any unblocking, Betacommand needs to state clearly and unequivocally what lessons he has learned"'' I normally disagree with this "make them show they know what they have done wrong" approach, but then that approach is too often applied to new editors who can't be expected to know all the site standards. Betacommand should know by now what is and isn't acceptable - what will and won't create drama. Plus the question that East718's response has thrown up (the "unvetted code" bit) - either Betacommand knew what the bot request was for (and thus shares responsibility for thinking it should happen without discussion) or he ran the bot request without really thinking about what it was for - not suitable behaviour for someone who is now back on the ] and is trusted with helping to approve or deny other bot requests. I would prefer that Betacommand actually steps up to the plate and addresses these issues (and gets his bot unblocked early), rather than him just staying quiet and waiting for the block to expire. I agree that this block is not the right point to talk about splitting up BCBot - but that discussion shouldn't be deferred much longer (BC needs to lay out a clear timetable by when he intends to get this done - and there needs to be checks to prevent over-reliance on single bots, or any bots). ] (]) 13:59, 5 February 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 ].
:Until BCB is split up into multiple bots (a completely reasonable request that has been made multiple times in the past) I see no reason it should be unblocked. Opening the source would be good too. ] (]) 10:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
:: While that's a fair point, and one perhaps Betacommand should do, I don't think it's fair to hold a block over Betacommand's head over something as trivial as that. Nevertheless, I see the points made above as well. ] (]) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
:: Agreed, I strongly oppose holding BCBot's block over his head, to get what you want. If you believe that every bot should be forced to have separate accounts (and, be open source), per task, then, please get consensus and modify the bot policy. ]] 13:08, 5 February 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."
:::Agreed. BetacommandBot might emphasize some necessary changes to the Bot policy, but BetacommandBot's case must be considered as an independant thing, no matter what. ] <font color="red">]</font> 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
:::I haven't suggested any broad policy changes - I just want Betacommand to split his bot. With any reasonable code design this would be an easy task. ] (]) 15:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
::::I was saying, that, if you want bot owners to be required to run separate tasks, under separate accounts, this isn't the time, nor the place. Until then, there really isn't any requirement, for BCBot to do so. ]] 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
:::I am not in favour of an early unblocking; Betacommand has not been blocked, his bot has. If he cannot run his bot within the agreed limits, it should stay blocked. An early unblocking merely confirms to Betacommand that he can pretty much do what he likes with his bot. ] ] 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
* : 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''
BetacommandBot has a long history of problems, especially bugs and unauthorised actions. Do not unblock it. I suggest we ban it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
'''Absolutely do not unblock''' BetacommandBot. You don't keep giving the car keys to the kid who keeps driving off of Deadman's Curve. This whole latest hullabaloo happened ''precisely'' because of a failure to '''stop and think'''. Had this issue been calmly deliberated on-wiki, it would have quickly become obvious that it was a ''hideously stupid idea from the get-go''. Instead, it was dashed off as a "hey, let's try this!" idea on IRC, and quickly implemented, to the project's detriment. I think that making BetacommandBot cool its heels for a week (or more) is clearly necessary in order to prevent this sort of slapdash irresponsibility in the future. ] (]) 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
:Nandesuka puts it better then I did. Apropos of very little, this is the '''36th block''' to be issued to BetacommandBot, for various reasons including misuse, continuing to work outside trial periods, general bugginess, and so on. Most of them get undone early because Betacommand always promises he's learnt his lesson and won't screw up again. How many more chances will this bot get? Surely we could find a user or a group of users more suitable, civil, and with the capacity to learn from their mistakes to run bots that cover the tasks BetacommandBot does, split by task and with open code to allow for collaborative improvement. ] ] 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
::Neıl, you fail to note that 90% of those blocks are groundless and quickly reverted. I also take offense to your attacks against me. Ive personly done over 60,000 contributions to this project, and BCBot has ~800,000 edits. yes there will be mistakes, errors and bugs with that number of edits. In this case I did one act to protect the encyclopedia people completely fail to assume good faith with me. I now know why so many good users are leaving the project in droves, on average we loose an admin ever two days. we seem to want to hang every good user for the slightest mistake. it seems that now users like creating drama, and banning users. it almost seems that the current consensus is to have be banned and sent to hell. ] 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
:::::As Haukurth says, "90% were groundless" was patently untrue. The fact many were quickly reverted is because you have already been extended a lot of good faith and many admins have been willing to unblock the bot because you promised it would work from now on. But it's clearly not working, as there's at least 16 blocks that are valid (even if they were undone before expiration). "People completely fail to assume good faith with you" - does this mean you don't even understand why what you did was wrong? ] ] 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
:::lucasbfr's count below has it that 50% of the blocks are valid. That's still a lot of blocks. A bigger problem is that you react with this same indignant attitude every time you've made a mistake and been criticized for it. ] (]) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Haukur, Ive admited that I fucked up, I was acting in what I though was the betterment of wikipedia. Im sorry if I get a little irratated when people miss-quote facts and attack me for making good faith efforts to help. it seems that people ignore all the good that I do and they just attack me and call for my head on platter. or that I get banned ] 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


---
::: Indeed, from a COOP perspective, I'm a little worried on how reliant elements of wikipedia seems to on the BCbot performing rountine tasks and how little redundancy we have. As a matter of urgency, we need to work towards developing bots that are under the control of the ''community'' (by that, I mean the community has access to the code via some mechanism - so that if the owner leaves or falls under a bus we have a fallback position). I agree entirely with Neil's other comments. Is there a working group or other "body" who could take a lead here? --] (]) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
::::Theoretically, ]. But that nearly got shut down by the community at one point. One idea would be to get developers more involved. See ]: <blockquote>"It is my suggestion that the development and systems administration team should play an integral role in the administration of a successful bot system. While the community of the English Misplaced Pages should be tasked with determining whether the purpose of a bot is sound, it is the general Wikimedia technical community which must evaluate a proposed bot, feature, or other technically-sensitive change for its impact upon performance, and on whether it is better achieved with, for instance, extensions and modifications to MediaWiki." - ]</blockquote> This would also help build bridges between the community and developers. I really think this is a great idea, and should be followed up as far as possible. ] (]) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
::::: Carcharoth, it's a good idea in theory, but it's bad in practice, simply because the developer squad is already spread thin and overworked. If they were interested, yes, that would be great, but I really doubt that is the case. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion. Why can't Betacommand spend the week-long block tidying up his code, running it on test wikis, and preparing for this splitting of tasks and opening up of the code that he seems to be on the verge of doing? We can't force him to do this, but we can politely suggest that he do this. ] (]) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:It would be lovely if BC were prepared to do that. I'm pretty sure he has been asked politely to consider this ona number of occasions and refused to do so. ] ] 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Neil, ] (out of 27 blocks) I counted 11 valid blocks and 10 out of process. I guess that 50% of blocks on the bot are still rubbish. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:::16 valid blocks (plus at least 4 valid ones on ] for malfunctioning automated scripts, running the bot on the main account, bot-spamming RFCU, automated deletion etc) makes 20. Even with a number of blocks being "out of process", 20 valid blocks suggetss there's something to be resolved. Splitting the bot tasks would be an excellent start. ] ] 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep blocked until functions are atomized. Folks keep saying that we shouldn't keep it blocked because no permanent harm was done. That's an insane standard that we would never apply to an editor. ] '']'' 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I hate this, but I believe the bot should ''stay blocked''. I've tried to be open minded, but I've seen, over the past year, too many mistakes coming from Betacommand and I simply don't trust his judgment with the Bot, unfortunately. I tried - really tried - to wipe the slate clean after the fiasco of a year ago, and I had almost rebuild my trust in Betacommand and then he went and did this. I'm sorry, in my opinion, the bot should remain blocked for the full duration. I also strongly suggest that the BAG get involved in this and codify whether or not bots should be allowed to run unapproved tasks in userspace. By the way, given that the task was run in userspace with the '''sole purpose''' of then having it impact on main-space, I am horribly disappointed in Betacommand's reasoning that "since it's in userspace" it was okay. - ] &#124; ] 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
:I believe that '''if''' BCB's edits were not so crucial as they are, his block should remain. I believe that until we can get his tasks split up between trustworthy users, he should remain unblocked, but merely to do work that is extremely difficult and/or tedious by hand. When this is finished, he should be blocked. I barely even edit Misplaced Pages much anymore, but I still know of the infamous qualities of BCB. I don't mean to slam on its master, Betacommand, because his edits have been very helpful. Unfortunately, I must agree that these crucial tasks must be handed over to someone who will not make such errors in judgement. <font face = "Bradley Hand ITC"> <font color="#F88017"> -] ]</font> </font> 04:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
Unblocked BCB, left note for Tim. ''] ]'', 11:07 ] ] (GMT).
:Rich, how do propose the above concerns should be addressed? A warning to Betacommand not to run new bot requests or code without getting them approved first? You do realise that is what he did, right? And that Tim's block was ''after'' the bot had ceased its "system resources abuse", and was probably to prevent ''future'' abuses of system resources? How can this be prevented in the future? Has Betacommand said clearly what he has learnt from this? If you are going to unblock after a long discussion like the one above, I think you should say a bit more than just:
:*Tim's talk page: ''"BetacommandBot. Hi Tim, just to let you know I'm unblocking this account as the system resource issue is no longer. Rgds"'' (10:52)
:*Unblock log: ''"System resource issue no longer an isue - bot not doing that"'' (10:53)
:*Betacommand's talk page: ''"Bot unblocked. Effective now. Verb sap. etc."'' (10:56)
:*In this thread: ''"Unblocked BCB, left note for Tim."'' (11:07)
:Otherwise it seems that you are ignoring the above concerns. ] (]) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As the unblocking means that no further admin action is required, it seems that this discussion will have to move to a requests for comments, which I was hoping to avoid. If Betacommand is more responsive to the questions above, then maybe this can be avoided. ] (]) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::Well, the block served no further purpose. BCB isn't going to do "something silly" in the next six days, so we need to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face, here. What BCB did in this case was well intentioned, and could have been done without breaking any "rules" in a dozen different ways. The question of user behaviour can be taken up with Betacommand on his talk page, or RFC if appropriate, of changes to bot processes or standards on the appropriate discussion pages. This particular incident is, it seems to me, only important as part of a pattern of behaviour, which if seen as a problem, should not be addressed by temporary block. ''] ]'', 12:24 ] ] (GMT).
:::I have raised the bot issues at ], but there has been no response so far. If you feel this was meant as a temporary block to prevent abuse of system resources, an abuse that is indeed no longer occurring, why not ask Tim that first? My reading of it is that you are wrong, and that the block was aimed to be left in place until Tim or the community (not just you) were satisfied that Betacommand had responded adequately to the concerns raised. Neither East718 nor Betacommand have indictated ''what'' they discussed, ''who'' they discussed it with, and ''why'' they failed to discuss it with anyone. Just saying "I fucked up" is not answering those questions. I will copy my comments above over to Betacommand's talk page. The level of responsiveness ''is'' a concern, and is a constant refrain. It shouldn't have to take all this to get Betacommand to respond to concerns. ] (]) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, what, Rich? You unblocked? There are clearly concerns, that is not a consensus action. I'm not sure that's the route I'd have taken. - ] &#124; ] 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm less concerned about the unblock than the poor response by Betacommand so far. He has said he is sorry for causing drama and doesn't intend to repeat this action. No apology for the failure to discuss. TO make it easier for him to respond, I've laid out my concerns at his talk page. See . ] (]) 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::And Betacommand has responded there. As I said , I'm satisfied now those answers have been given, and am happy for this AN thread to be archived (though others may want to continue). Some issues remain for WP:BAG to discuss, and for East to respond to when he returns. ] (]) 14:53, 6 February 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)
===source code?===
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
An important issue that is central to this is that of the source code. My understanding is that it is currently closed? I see a number of requests on here for BC to open it to the community (or at the least "approved" members of the community?) Can we get a yea or nay on that request? If it's a nay - that's fine and I have no issue with that but the community needs to know so that we can start developing bots to perform those important but routine tasks and are under the control of the community rather than single editors. This is no slight on the good work that the bot had performed to date but rather a pragmatic way forward and an attempt to insure that the best needs of the community and project are served. --] (]) 16:25, 5 February 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)
::As I was about to post above, I do release my code to a very very limited number of trusted users. one I dont like clones of BCBot floating about that I cannot control. the code is very powerful (Ive clocked it at 700 edits a minute). I dont make my code idiot proof. I build it so that I can use it without a lot of hassel. Also I dont have the time to review code changes made by other to my code. As for splitting the bot into several accounts Ive been working on that. I have also been doing other requests (]) changing several thousand lines of code spread accross multiple files just takes time. with RW commitments I need 30 hours a day, and as we all know there are only 26 hours in a day. ] 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::"''the code is very powerful (Ive clocked it at 700 edits a minute)''". Come on. Editing a page is pretty simple, code-wise, and there are vast quantities of free code available. I have very strong doubts that any code can be any more "powerful" than other code at making edits. And even if your code has some magic that makes it ten times faster than everybody else's, accounts that are not autoconfirmed can make only 8 edits per minute, and other accounts tend to have internet connection latency and speed as a much greater limiting factor than how "powerful" the code is. — ''']''' '']'' 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
::::* To who would this be a threat?
::::* Which law?
::::* In which country?
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


: I started a conversation to this end at ] yesterday and the response has been lukewarm at best. My feeling is that bot operators don't want to release code
::1) To keep control of it tightly, and have it be "theirs". I.e., no clones.
::2) Arguments that the bot codes are "sensitive".
::3) Operators not wanting to have to clean up their code.
::4) Bot operators not wanting to be responsible for others using their code.
:The only way to force release would probably be if the community (not the BAG) ordered that all code be published to get authorized to run new bots. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 16:35, 5 February 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)
:: I can understand all of those feels but the community really needs to achieve a better balance between considering the feelings of the people creating the bots and ensuring that we have sufficient control to ensure Continuity of operations/development if a developer goes under a bus. I think retroactively asking for all code to be released can be a problem but certainly there must be scoop for improving the situation with future approvals? --] (]) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


* I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: As I understand it, the crats actually oversee the BOT process, but have delegated the review part to the ], so if the crats said as a group "no new bots/bot tasks may run unless the code is released via X means" that would solve this debate IMHO. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Bureaucrats only give out the bot flag. They don't say whether automated scripts are permitted to run to begin with. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:43, 6 February 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)
:::All of those reasons are standard and patently wrong-headed objections to open source.
* 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)
:::# Possessiveness is not an acceptable excuse for anything on Misplaced Pages. You can choose to participate or not, but if you choose to, in certain respects you need to forfeit all possessiveness for the good of the project. That already applies to edits' copyright and there's no sound policy reason it should not be applied to bots as well.
:::# No bot code is sensitive. Any idiot can already hack up a ten-line Perl script to spam as many edits as he pleases, once he creates an account and figures out how to calculate a valid edit token. And anyone willing to look at the source code of an anti-vandal bot to figure out how to more effectively vandalize would evade the bot somehow in any case, it's not very hard.
:::# Nobody says you have to clean up your code, you just have to release it, and provide just enough documentation that others can actually get the thing running. If it's an ungodly mess, that's not great, but people can still run it if you disappear ― at the very least, until someone can write up a replacement.
:::# Every bot will still have to be registered and approved, and it's the operator who's responsible for what the bot does, not the author. If someone wants to run a bot whose source code they don't remotely understand, they should probably be denied the right to do so without fairly good reason.
:::I think that, in retrospect, it was always a bad idea to have the BAG consist of bot operators. It would be better for it to consist of programmers who can understand the issues involved but don't actually run any bots. There's too much conflict of interest right now, and as a result, too much self-indulgence, IMO. Bot authors and operators provide invaluable services to the community, but that doesn't mean they should be given any right to operate against the project's principles or its interest. Better people get by with manual methods all along than rely on a closed-source bot that may suddenly disappear one day. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (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=]}}.
::::Here is a <b>bold</b> suggestion: Treat all (bot) source code in a similar way that we treat articles. Let everybody be able to edit the code: Create new tasks, improve any code, debug, etc. Vandalism is dealt with similar to main space vandalism. Unwanted tasks (not compatible with policy) will be deleted. Good-faith-errors will be corrected. Disputes solved by trying to reach consensus. (Utopia or straighforward?) If we require all bot runs to be revertible (similar to ordinary edits – when the developers come up with a robust rollback function), then running a bot is not such a big deal. ] (]) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
:::::That would be a HUGE security risk, in my opinion. ]] 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}


:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Very bad idea. It would only take a change to one line of OrphanBot's code and it would start replacing unsourced images with penis pictures. --] (]) 05:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
:::::Indeed very bad. A few lines changed in ClueBot could either completely disable it or make it revert *everything*. Furthermore, one character in ClueBot's source could make it negate the heuristics and thus revert only good edits but not bad edits. Also, the '''huge''' security risk to the servers that run these bots ... Most of these bots are written in '''very powerful''' languages. Languages that are capable of lots of stuff outside of Misplaced Pages. Languages that could run ] code ... Languages that could ] the server running them. You know the limit of 100 ifexist calls per page? A forkbomb could (and indeed would, if coded properly) use billions of more resources than an ifexist call. As the bots' password has to be stored on the server somewhere, readable by the bot, what keeps someone from writing a piece of code to read the password and post it to a Misplaced Pages page? What about the ability to run '''any command''' on the server the bot is running on under the user running the bot (often the same user account that the bot owner uses). We know that bots can go at ''very high speeds'', now what if someone were to compromise 5 or 10 bots? Someone could very easily vandalize a lot of Misplaced Pages before someone could block the bots. Suppose 10 bots at 10 edits per second (this is possible with forking and such), and it took 1 minute to block all 10 bots, in that short time, the bots would have vandalized 6,000 pages. Now, let's assume that it took a bit longer to block them and it took 5 minutes, the bots would have vandalized 30,000 articles. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 06:33, 6 February 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)
::::::Good grief. I don't think ''anyone'' was suggesting that the live code be made publically editable without review. — ''']''' '']'' 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ab}}
::::::What about the idea of a trusted repository like OTRS? They maintain copyright permissions and secure user communications. As part of the bot approvals process, each bot task could be issued an OTRS ticket number verifying that a copy of the code has been given. Then, if something like BCB's block or Gurch's travel happened, an OTRS rep could issue the code to a new, vetted bot operator (probably an existing operator) who would at least have that far a head start on coding a replacement (if not being able to implement the bot automatically).
*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)
::::::As a followup, some bot ops have released their code and there are somewhat useful (to a programmer) documentations on how to code in specific languages used on wikis. What is to prevent someone from coding their own bot, setting up several sleeper-socks, and doing the same thing you suggest? Using rotating names and proxies, a concentrated attacked, like what happened to GRC.com several years ago is probably just as possible with or without bot code published.
:::::::Certainly, somebody could do something like that if they had the time, motivation and resources. But somebody that motivated is not going to be stopped by a lack of available bot code. I mean, there are countless wiki editing modules available on CPAN, and it's not exactly difficult to write one. I think it took me an hour or two. — ''']''' '']'' 07:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::In fact ClueBot has had its source open since its inception, and I haven't seen any vandals who have been trying to get around ClueBot. :) -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)"


== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
::::::so isn't there already a risk of someone switching the heuristics or forkbombing (assuming that part of the code is released) and re-running it on their own system to attack your server or wikipedia? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}


A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
No more risk than there is of somebody picking up pywikipedia and sending through some mass-changes of replacing images with something offensive. It is my opinion that the place of anti-vandalism bots is to revert unsophisticated vandalism by bored schoolkids — bored schoolkids who are, on the whole, unwilling and/or unable to look up the source code of particular antivandalism bots and to figure out how to get around them. — ''']''' '']'' 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No, you misunderstand, forkbombing is an attack against the server executing the source code, not against a remote server like Misplaced Pages. And, no, ClueBot doesn't have any fork bomb code in it. Anyone technically savvy could easily create a bot (or use a heavily modified version of any open source bot) and run it on their own computer. That isn't the reason it is a bad idea. The reason it is a bad idea is that most people aren't going to take the time to do that, but if they could insert a single '!' into ] to make it negate its heuristics, that is a different matter entirely. Furthermore, the major bots on Misplaced Pages are trusted when you see them make an edit. How many times have you checked MiszaBot III's edit to see if it actually just archived stuff without changing anything else? -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I've checked Misza's a grand total of once, when I set up an archiver for another user and screwed up the date coding and had to go and undo Misza's move to correct my error. And I'm not saying code should be editable, but right now someone with the proper knowledge could take ], copy it to a non-protected page, insert the !, and do damage across many sleeper accounts. On the other hand, requiring all code to go to OTRS for storage, would solve the problem of disappearing bot ops, compromised bots (we've had compromised admins), and maybe even eliminate the need for bot ops to feel some duty to publish their code. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:33, 6 February 2008 (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)
I don't think you really understand what you're saying there. Putting the code in a non-protected page and editing it doesn't magically make it run (try it!). You need a server, you need several accounts, you need decent bandwidth, you need the appropriate software installed on your server. Developing and operating a vandalbot is certainly not a particularly easy task. The easiest part is figuring out how to edit Misplaced Pages from a script. — ''']''' '']'' 07:44, 6 February 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)
:::::::::<small>(ec)</small> No, they couldn't. They would have to have access to a ] machine, a ] ] interpreter, a working knowledge of PHP, ], ], and a ton of other prerequisites. That page is solely for reference, that page has no special status. As a matter of fact, you can edit it now. It won't change a thing, believe me, many have tried. You would have to copy the source into the correct files, create a proper directory structure, MySQL schema, and create a config file for it from reading the source and figuring out which variables need setting. They would then have to create ] and set it equal to true, otherwise the bot wouldn't run. Then they would have to actually start the bot and after the bot did some sanity checks and read some wiki pages, then it would need to connect both to ] and to the ] feed. After it did that, it would attempt to login as the user defined in the config file, then and only then would it start doing what it is supposed to do (with any changes the malicious user decided to make). -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 07:54, 6 February 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)
:::::::::(ec2)No, I get that I can't run a bot by magically entering a script. What I mean is that if Cobi's fear is that a user will edit 1 character of his code, so he puts it on a protected page, {or doesn't I see now), along comes a vandal programer, and now that code is in an area that it can be copied to an editable area (I said page, but compiler, text file, etc would also do), then a vandal could copy it, change the code, compile it, run it on their server, and do all sorts of damage. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:The difference is the access to the trusted bot's account. ] is recognized and trusted not to cause havoc. This saves a lot of time: people don't have to double-check all its edits. In the case of many bots, they even have bot flags, so that not only do people not ''have'' to double-check their edits, they ''can't'' (at least on RC) unless they go out of their way to show bot edits. Currently nobody does, precisely because the bot flag indicates trustworthiness.<p>What you are suggesting is, to all intents and purposes, that anyone (who, granted, knows a little programming) be allowed to make any edit they please using the account of any bot. The problem with this should really be very obvious. The entire idea of accounts is to allow recognizability, the ability to associate different edits with each other and use that to draw conclusions that allow you to treat different edits differently. If that weren't important, we would just do away with all account names and IP addresses, and have no way of telling one edit's author from another. It's a bad idea, and no better for being suggested only for bots. Why don't you just have all bots run under one account? It would amount to pretty much the same thing.<p>This is ''on top of'' the fact that arbitrary code execution by untrusted third parties is completely unacceptable in any context. Arbitrary code execution immediately implies trivial DoS capability, intentional ''or'' unintentional. This is why you cannot edit the source code of MediaWiki. This is why you cannot edit site JavaScript unless you're an administrator. This is why you cannot run arbitrary SQL queries. Even if you were totally well-meaning, inefficient code or a simple programming error could kill whatever server is running the code. This is why load on the toolserver, where anyone can sign up for an account to run programs, is ridiculously high. Nobody there is malicious (well, except for one guy who apparently ran a ''Counterstrike'' server, but that didn't last long). They just aren't being as careful as they should be about optimizing code. And they still bog the server down to a crawl.<p>So no, really, this isn't a good idea. I promise. :) If you want to advocate anything more extreme than just requiring the bot to be open-source, you could suggest that it be put in a central repository on a Wikimedia server that a large pool of trusted users can access, and a much smaller pool of trusted users can put live after review. This would be basically like how MediaWiki development is handled, or how most open-source projects are. I'm not advocating that, at least for the present. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Misplaced Pages is one of the strictest sites about using only freely licensed images and other media. If we are so strict on images that appear on the main page, why, no, '''how''' can we not look at the code that a bot runs to make edits to thousands of articles? How can we allow this code to be proprietary, when the rest of the site is free? If featured articles require sources, multiple editors, etc. '''How''' can we allow bots to just be approved by a committee and ran? Does the community as a whole get a say in this? I firmly believe that bots on Misplaced Pages must be open source, that all editors on Misplaced Pages can view and comment on. Though you may realize that there are a million reasons that this "would never work", everyone here realizes that this has to happen. Something like this fiasco cannot happen again.<font face = "Bradley Hand ITC"> <font color="#F88017"> -] ]</font> </font> 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: This current episode happened because an admin and a bot operator did not communicate with developers and larger community – licensing of the code has little relevance. Bear in mind also that the key role of BAG is not really vetting the code, it's vetting the operators. There are examples of people picking up some code, and wanting to run it without understanding how it works (just browse the rejected bot requests). I don't believe the community on the whole is geeky enough to be trusted with this role, as one must know something about the subject to be able to act as a judge. Turning bot requests over the community would simply turn it into a popularity contest, a bit like RfA. Most of the people who know enough of programming and are interested in bots have already gravitated towards BAG. – ] (]) 06:27, 6 February 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)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
::::: But that's not really the issue from an organisational point of view, the issue is that we are becoming highly reliant on closed sourced bots and their owners to perform many routine or important tasks. If that editor falls under a bus or goes rogue, then we don't currently have any redundancy in place. Yes - those things can be done manually, yes someone could write a replacement bot - but it's still a waste of time and resources when we can develop processes that minimise disruption from the start by bring bots more tightly under the control of the community. Hell we don't even have to do anything with the sourcecode, just log it somewhere (which does not have to be publically available). If you want to register a bot, you turn over the source code and you agree that in the effect of your incapacity that someone else can manage/develop it. I have a bit of a background in organisational resilience and this stuff seems like a non-brainer to me. --] (]) 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.


This issue has been discussed extensively over on the Bot pages. Two more useful things (than open source per se) would be if each significant task has a number of operators that can perform it, and if rather than being extrinsic, bot functions could be made intrinsic to MediaWiki. Nonetheless this would not stop, nor should it, people using automation in general, without redundancy. ''] ]'', 12:46 ] ] (GMT).
:Agreed. Rich, is there a well-organised list of bot functions, the history of who performed them in the past, and who performs them now? If not, shouldn't some effort be made towards carrying out that sort of organisation? ] (]) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::No, and what is needed is carefully constructed list of ''important'' bot functions (i.e. that would be missed). However that's the easy part, the hard part is ensuring that they are all "covered off" by another bot operator - and maintaining the list as operators come and go. Whether BAG would take on this task I don't know, most BAGers seem inordinately busy. ''] ]'', 14:47 ] ] (GMT).
: If bots were open-source and acceptably documented, each significant task would automatically have a number of operators who could perform it, i.e., anyone who wants to download the source and get it running. That would be the major point (other than moral freeness issues) in requiring open-source bots. As for adding bot functions to MediaWiki, the main problem is that there's necessarily a much lower barrier to running a bot, than to submitting code to a widely-used application that is relied upon for performance and functionality by not only Misplaced Pages but thousands of third parties.<p>There are definitely bot tasks that should be in the software, though. One thing that would obsolete quite a few bots would be a reasonable discussion system (no need for archiving, signing, ...). Another thing that would help a ton is a sufficiently flexible task-management system, which could assist in things like AFD, RFA, etc. by automatically creating pages, maintaining lists of open tasks in a category, tracking time limits, listing ended discussions in an appropriate place, and so on. Improved handling of templates, categories, and interwiki links would kill a whole bunch more bots. If anyone wanted to write new features to help out with that kind of thing, it would be great. Anti-vandalism is probably best to keep in bots, though, because it doesn't really benefit from tighter connection to the software at all and is very fluffy and heuristic-based, so hard to get unambiguously right. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::No, those things should ''not'' be in the software, because they're not set in stone. This is one of the strengths of wikis - that we can get processes working ''without'' the software enforcing them. These are social policies set on each wiki, and should never move beyond that. '''–&nbsp;].]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::A built-in discussion system and improved category/template/interwiki handling should definitely be in the software. A task-management extension would also be very nice to have. I think all of these could be made flexible enough to accommodate most needs currently served by bots that handle those tasks, and to the extent they can't, the bots can be retained. Compare to the introduction of categories as an improvement over lists: lists have become much less important, but are still used due to limitations in the category system (e.g., no ability to associate different names to articles, no ability to add comments next to entries, no ability to add custom headings, . . .). That doesn't mean categories aren't an extremely valuable feature, it just means they aren't perfect.<p>Integrated features have a variety of critical advantages over bots, including speed; reliability; ease of use (using a specialized interface vs. editing wiki pages, the latter possibly requiring arcane templates, etc.); and working out of the box, which is extremely important not only for third parties, but for smaller wikis that don't have large numbers of people willing or able to run bots. (I doubt there are a lot of things done by bots on any but the ten largest wikis.) As I say, in a few cases, like anti-vandal bots, none of these qualities are as important as unlimited adaptability, which bots have and the software usually doesn't. But in many cases, the more limited adaptability of a software feature is easily sufficient.<p>The task-management extension is perhaps the most arguable of my suggestions. I do think it would be very valuable, and could enormously simplify participation in processes like AFD. There's been some discussion at ], but no work has been done on it, at least not by MediaWiki developers. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 17:04, 7 February 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>
=== Possible vandal bot ===
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've read a lot of mistakes in the discussion above, I'd like to try to correct some.
#A ] attack using one of the multiple bot frameworks that are available, or one modified bot, is very unlikely to happen. ]s are absolutely off-topic here : That would require several servers running very speedy bots to work, and from my point of vue, there are others types of attacks, way more efficient that could be used to take down the fundation's servers. Modifiying a bot in order to attempt a ] attack is a waste of time, and that's for sure.
#The other type of attack that you should worry about would be a simple mass automated edit wave. Not some attempt to take down any server, but simply some characters switching, some page blankings, etc, to alter the ''content'' and not the service. And such an attack is VERY EASY to set up actually, without having to modify any particular bot scripts:
#* Pywikipedia only needs : python, an internet connection, and a fresh wikipedia account. Easy.
#* With one of the basic script included in pywikipedia, you can perform automated replacements and customize your edit summary
#* a <s>10</s> (<small>Actually, the limit for unconfirmed user is </small>8) edits per second edit rate can be very, very easily reached with a very slow connection and/or hardware. (And I insist on that : Our bot scripts are using timers around every corner to slow down their processes)
#* Setting up 10 computers to start such an attack at the same time is ''very easy'' for an individual.
#* Also some IT students have access to powerful servers that are way more speedy than individual computers: I'm currently sitting at a computer school, which has 4 *huge* servers for its student needs, with a 15Gbps connection : I will not try, but setting up 50 threads to make automated edits from 200 different accounts, using automatically changing edit summaries to make them hard to detect (hum... generated from random google searches ? or, better, from edit summaries from the last XML dump ? ) is EASY STUFF, really.
#* I don't think that there would be any way to easily counter such an attack, and yet I'm not even ''this'' experienced on computer attacks. Really, I do think that wikipedia is already vulnerable to such an attack, so please, please, please, stop worrying about a possible attack following the release of the code of an antivandal bot...


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)
Wannabe hackers have more chances to succeed monitoring the latest vulnerabilities, or using a very simple replacement bot.


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
How many of you, bot owners, 'crats, and admins, are logging in using ] to secure your password ? Really, I think that there are some security issues requiring way more attention that this so-called problem about bot code releases...
::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 ==
] <font color="red">]</font> 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:Most of your points are true, however, you have lost the context. All of this was in response to someone suggesting that we let the bots' ''live code'' be changed by anyone at any time. This opens all sorts of attack venues ''against the server that the bot's code is running on'', including a forkbomb against the server running the bot (<tt>while (1) pcntl_fork();</tt> for PHP) or using the bot to download a DoS program to the server running the bot in order for the attacker to add another server to their DDoS botnet. The problem is not releasing the code ... ClueBot's code already is. The problem is letting anyone change the live, running copy of it and having the server running the bot execute the new code. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, did someone really proposed this ? :S
::I assumed that ''live code'' was meaning that a running bot should have its actual source published somewhere, and allow others to change it, but... using a ], or this sort of system ?!
::] <font color="red">]</font> 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, above:
:::{{cquote|1=Here is a <b>bold</b> suggestion: Treat all (bot) source code in a similar way that we treat articles. Let everybody be able to edit the code: Create new tasks, improve any code, debug, etc. Vandalism is dealt with similar to main space vandalism. Unwanted tasks (not compatible with policy) will be deleted. Good-faith-errors will be corrected. Disputes solved by trying to reach consensus. (Utopia or straighforward?) If we require all bot runs to be revertible (similar to ordinary edits – when the developers come up with a robust rollback function), then running a bot is not such a big deal. ] (]) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC).|4=User:Oceanh|5=]}}
:::-- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
===RFC/RFAr against BetacommandBot===
Betacommand is stubborn and does not want to fix his bot. And you all ignore the problems and let BetacommandBot cause more damage. Everytime BetacommandBot gets blocked, it gets unblocked very fast, whether the block is correct or not. ''<redacted sentence>'' Please deal with the problems. File an RFC/RFAr against BetacommandBot. Also, shut it down until it is fixed. --] (]) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:If ''you've'' got a problem with BCB, ''you'' take it to RfC or ArbCom. Don't come here demanding others do it. ➔ ''']''' has changed his plea to guilty 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


== Call for mentors ==
:And, if you want people to take you seriously, start your userpage; That bright red link just looks stupid. (and inviting to vandals). ]] 00:26, 8 February 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)
::Having a userpage isn't mandatory, and isn't a prerequisite to being taken seriously. There are admins (such as ]) who do not have userpages, but still expect (quite rightly) to be taken seriously. ] <sup> ] ]</sup> 09:54, 12 February 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)
::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
:::JzG understands this principle, and has smartly modified his signature to divert to his userpage. —]] 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
:::: In case you're interested, I keep my userpage as a redlink because some people instinctively react differently (and not usually in a good way) if your name comes up as a redlink. It can be a useful litmus test for Clue. I got the idea from someone else, of course. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


=== Possible Solution === == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
Attack the source of the problem:


(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)
#Change the revision limit protocol to only take the size of the article and history into account, not the amount of edits. (if that makes a difference)
#write in a permanent redirect (or add a normal redirect and protect the article) to a 404-like "article has been deleted, click to go back" page.
#Progressively delete the original article.


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


== Heritage Foundation ==
]] 00:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
:Regarding (1), you misunderstand the cause of the problem. A 1 GB article (not that those are permitted on Misplaced Pages) is no slower or faster to delete than a zero-byte article. Deletion moves a row from the revision table to the archive table; it doesn't touch the external-storage servers, where the text of the relevant revisions is stored. The text of the article remains exactly where it is, it's just now associated with a deleted revision's ID instead of a non-deleted revision's ID. This is why the limit is on revisions per page, and not the size of the revisions.<p>I don't understand (2) or (3). What are you proposing to redirect to what? What do you mean by "progressively delete"? —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 21:05, 8 February 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)
::The reason for the revision limit, as I understood it, was to stop the server from grinding to a halt when a large article and its history are deleted. That's the reason for this suggestion. Progressive deletion was just an idea to alleviate this congestion. delete it piece by piece so it's easier on the system. I must have gotten it wrong somewhere. Oops ]] 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, if by progressive deletion you mean deleting a few hundred revisions, waiting a while, deleting a few hundred more, waiting, etc., then yes, that would certainly work, and would be a feasible solution. It and similar solutions have been discussed, for instance, . The problem is that nobody's written the code to do it. The current code is just a patch job of a few lines: it's not meant to be a definitive or permanent solution, it's just meant to stop people from breaking the site until someone writes a proper fix. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


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


:{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The solution is to block the bot and leave it blocked until Betacommand fixes it. The only reason he hasn't is because he doesn't want to. ] (]) 07:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
::@]: 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 ] ==
:I think Betacommandbot should be blocked until its problems are fixed. ] (]) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
=== Requesting that Betacommandbot be blocked ===


The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The owner has been ignoring complaints about the bot. The only one responding on the is someone who keeps saying he has no power over the bot, meaning the discussions go nowhere. Given the immense number of editors who have complaints about the bot, I think it should be blocked until the owner is willing to address concerns about the bot in a civil and mature manner. ] (]) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Ive addressed all concerns, please check the archives. ] 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::Whoah there! You seem like you don't care about what other people (possibly a majority of people) think. <s>That's pretty offensive</s>. <s>It's also kind of offensive that</s> you care so little about the errors that your bot makes, resulting in the deletion of the work of others and apparently the paralysis of WP. In other words, your actions are <s>the single-gre</s>a<s>test</s> liability <s>we have</s>... Do you care at all about that?? There are far too many concerns to be addressed in just your archives, BTW. Jimbo made it clear that admins aren't supposed to edit war over things such as blocks. As far as I can see, your bot is technically still blocked under WP policy. The fact that it's still editing is <s>an injustice,</s> not a vindication for you. It's still editing because it can, not because it should be and definitely not because it's been judged in any sort of way to be compliant with policy.--] (]) 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I still think the bot should be blocked. ] (]) 04:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


:Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s>
:::BetaCommandBot is an excellent tool, and we're lucky to have it. Thousands and thousands of edits have proved it. If you made 1000s of edits, I guarantee that you'd delete something someone cared about. —]] 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't see this Bot, or the policy it enforces, as making Misplaced Pages better. It should be possible to use a simple pre-loaded template upon image uploading to satisfy the fair use rationale. Why must we create the need for such red tape and endure endless talk pages littered with BetaCommandBot carpetbombing? If there is a proper forum for such a proposal, please let me know where it is. Thank you. --] (]) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
:::::When you say that you don't support the policy it enforces, is that the policy that protects Misplaced Pages from being sued for copyright infringement when people misues copyrighted pictures? That policy? --].].] 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::The bot does not protect us from being sued in any way, it enforces the letter of a Misplaced Pages policy. Pictures which are rightly used as fair use but have an incorrect rationale on the image page will get tagged for deletion, while images that should never be used as fair use because e.g. they are replaceable by a free equivalent) but have a "correct" fair use rationale (e.g. claiming that no free equivalent is available and so on) do not get tagged. This is not the bot's (or his operator's) fault, this is how bots work. However, this also means that this bot offers no protection from being sued at all, and is only used to make sure that all images seem to follow our policy to the letter. If done correctly, this is a good thing, and is not intended as a criticism of the bot, but it should not be defended with incorrect arguments. ] (]) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


::::Well, I have made 1000s of edits. Anyway, look at the bot's talk page. A lot of people have an issue with it. ] (]) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC) :I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know what the issue is with the main page and BetacommandBot, and frankly I don't care. In so far as the bot's enforcement of ] #10c is concerned, I fail to see a reason to block the bot. The bot is simply enforcing policy. It was approved for this task by the Bot Approvals Group (see ]) on 31 May 2007. It's actions have been debated on a number of occasions. One of them is at ]. At times, the bot has been asked to slow down, which Betacommand has complied with. It is currently running at rates accepted by the various discussions on this point.
:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Hide this racist edit. ==
People keep complaining that the bot can write rationales. It can't. Let's say the bot comes across an image which is used on five articles, but the rationale only covers the use for one article. The bot can not make a determination about how the image is used in the other four articles, and thus can't just simply add a link to the rationale for those four other articles. That takes a human. there's no way around that.
{{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The reality is, as ] noted in the BAG request for the task, the culture of not providing rationales that comply with #10c has to change. An alternate solution is to deprecate #10c. There's no middle ground. Either we comply with #10c, or we get rid of it. We do not stop enforcing other policies because numbers of editors do not like them. Who likes to be blocked? Nobody. Does that mean we suspend blocking because it's universally reviled by the people who get blocked? Of course not. Similarly, we don't suspend #10c because people who have not been complying with our #10c policy vociferously complain about the bot enforcing approved policy.


:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The solution here isn't blocking the bot. The solution is either getting rid of #10c or fixing the images. If you get rid of #10c, the bot won't be tagging images as having insufficient rationales. If you fix the images, the bot won't be tagging images as having insufficient rationales. There you go. Two solutions to the problem that do not involve blocking a bot that's been approved for its task, conducted hundreds of thousands of edits in support of that task, vetted and ultimately supported in its actions. --] (]) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
I agree with Hammersoft - above its claimed that the actions of the bot don't constitute complete enforcement of the non-free policies. Obviously, this is correct. The bot is responsible (and can only be responsible) for the parts of the policy that can be enforced by a bot. The rest of the policy needs to be enforced by people. This isn't an argument to get rid of the bot - its an argument for people to stop complaining when the bot enforces the policy and start ''abiding'' by the policy on their own. The simple fact is that if it is operating as designed then the bot only tags images that don't follow the policy - and tagging is all it does. So, quibble with the policy if thats your problem, or with the deleting admin if you think a rationale should be written instead of the image deleted. BCBot is part of the solution, not the problem. ]] 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:The problem is not poor policy, or a broken bot, the problem is an excess of "fair use." Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a 💕, yet we have tens of thousands of non-free images. How much they really add to some articles is debatable. How much is your understanding of a 2 hour movie increased by seeing 1/16 of a second of that movie? A poorly made screenshot tends to make an article look worse, not better. People complain that they only get a week to fix thousands or hundreds of images - if you have 2 dozen BCbot notices on your talk page, that's probably a sign that you've been uploading far too much fair use. Perhaps instead of trying to "fix" all of them, we should only keep the most important ones. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::Mr.Z-man, at last count we had ~292,000 non-free images. ] 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Despite a vocal minority on the subject, the purpose of non-free policy is ''not'' to discourage fair use by using a bot to harass people out of using non-free images. The vast number of non-free images in Misplaced Pages, and those being deleted, are routine well-accepted uses of logos, album covers, book covers, film posters, cover art, and so on that are completely within the bounds of fair use law and Misplaced Pages policy. The problem is a recordkeeping issue on the image page, not that the image is inappropriate. It arose due to a poor image upload feature, poorly written instructions, an arbitrary and disorganized enforcement means, new users, and changing policies. Use within policy and guidelines is just fine. If the policy and procedures were clear from the start, and new users had learned how to do it, we would have the exact same number of images but very little housecleaning to do. ] (]) 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
::::Well, that isn't where we are right now for whatever reason. The cause is not as relevant as the solution, which is bringing as many images as needed into compliance and deleting the rest. There is no deadline here, i.e. even if we delete a lot of images that could be useful and could perhaps have a reasonable rationale we can still put new images back later on. The competing interests of a free-content encyclopedia vs. improving some articles with fair-use images have been weighed, and the Foundation and the community has decided that free content is more important. The initiative here is a common point of confusion - we aren't trying to comply with US copyright law, because WMF liability in that regard is murky anyway and fair use is something we could legitimately establish in court. We are trying to create a free and completely reusable product, however. Tagging images at high speed to promote that goal is a small price to pay. ]] 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


*
I also request that BetacommandBot be blocked. It's not "enforcing policy", instead it is merely annoying the heck out of wikipedia editors. Some editors have said "fine, delete my images" because it's so annoying. Others have retired from editing Misplaced Pages entirely. The verbiage associated with BCB is frankly offensive (it's a bot. It can't "dispute" anything.) The passive voice is used, to ill effect. It needs to be fixed, and if Betacommand refuses to fix it, then it should be blocked.
*


Also, because the policy used to defend BCB is ineffective in solving the stated problem, BCB should be blocked until the policy is fixed. ] (]) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== 96.230.143.43 ==
===== Please block Betacommandbot =====
{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Leaving 8 messages on my talk in less than twelve hours violates ], ], ], ] etc etc et al. I don't want to come back after a couple of days off to this. I don't need it. No human user would get away with this, a bot should be doubly required to behave. ] (]) 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:You are lucky. One admin got 65 in 2 days. Oh to be popular. ] (]) 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC) ::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::'''''65!?!?!?!?''''' - that's got to violate ''some'' policy - why hasn't this bot been blocked already?!? ] (]) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::It's a robot. How can it "harass" or "stalk" you &mdash; it's just leaving notices of things you need to fix. It's not targeting you, nor does it mean you any harm. --] (]) 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::If anything the fact it's a robot makes it ''worse''. It's faceless, unaccountable and inhuman. How would you like your pc to suddenly start telling you you're doing something wrong? ''You shouldn't name your files like that, it's inefficient. Single letter filenames save disk space, I'm changing them all now!'' ] (]) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'd appreciate that actually. But back to business; there's no need to block BCB here; it's simply telling you something you uploaded is lacking something vital and giving you a chance to correct it. So, rather then beg that it be blocked for doing its job, how about you do yours and look at the files it's warned you about? -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::That's uncalled for and I dislike your use of the word 'beg' here. Nor do I appreciate being told to do my 'job'. In case it escaped you I'm a volunteer here. I give freely of my time and energy to make Misplaced Pages a better resource. This bot actually discourages me from doing that and it's editing in such a fashion that if it was a human it would get blocked in short order. But you seem to feel it's easier to attack the messenger (me) rather than actually respond to my concerns. ] (]) 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I understand you're a volunteer; but if you're being notified by any bot that something is wrong - a picture upload, a ], etc. - it behooves you to at least look to see if something is wrong rather than (as you put it) attack the messenger, as you yourself are doing here. I did not mean to be so snappish with you, but, as with Pedro below, I'm sick and tired of seeing Betacommandbot's name on by watchlist as part of an edit summary. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::If my PC had a ] which required single letter filenames, and would cause me to get sued if I didn't use them, I would rather like a notification like that. The bot may be faceless and inhuman &mdash; but there is a whole help desk set up to give it a face if people have a problem with its tags. --] (]) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::With total respect and sympathy to Exxolon: <tired of this debate>Given the relentlessness of complaints here and at ] can someone build ] to save us going through the same sodding debate three time a week? </tired of this debate> <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::(ec)You could always add a {{tl|Non-free use rationale}} to the images you uploaded. If you do that, you'll never hear from BCB again. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It's not so much what it's doing as the way it's doing it and the fact it's a bot. Last time I checked this is the 💕 anyone can edit, not anybot can edit. ] (]) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Never mind the fact that this bot is deleting otherwise perfectly valid image content far faster than we mere mortals can keep up. Unlike bots that actually perform helpful tasks, this thing is a bloody cancer that's eating away at Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yet again the defenders of this bot don't seem to understand the issue is not the policy, it is the tidal wave nature in which it is being applied, and in many cases to legacy correctly uploaded images, and for the most trivial of issues because it is poorly designed. ] (]) 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with Clayhalliwell, and have more to say about this. It is tagging thousands of images a day, and from the comments on it's talk page, the bot is making numerous errors. I have seen several images tagged with warnings that they are not properly tagged with non-free rationales, when in fact many, or even most, are plainly there. This bot is poorly written, or is perhaps deliberately written to encourage (or actually, harrass) editors into deleting images needlessly. It has tagged over 600,000 images, by its own count. That is excessive, and destructive to Misplaced Pages. - ] 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
UNINDENT - The crux of the issue is this. The goal here i to build the world's best 💕. So does having this bot running help or hurt that? I believe it hurts it by driving away contributors by barraging them with harrassing notices. The longer it runs, the more discouraged editors will become, the more will leave and the worse wikipedia will become. This bot is endangering the entire long term future of the project and it must be stopped forthwith. ] (]) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


== StoneX Group Inc. ==
The bot needs to change its language of warnings. Also, why is it mandatory that the original uploaders are responsible for adding links to "articles where this image is used"? After all, they did upload the image, provided fU-rationale, and source info ... then it should be trivial for a well-written bot to see where this image was added by the uploader, and fix per ]. Going on a deletion-rampage is not the solution ... these images are easy to fix, and the task should not be limited to only the original uploaders. --] (]) 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'd just like to add that I have <b>no objection whatsoever</b> to the general principle of a bot tagging images in need of a fair-use rationale. The problem is that the author of this bot, in going the further step of having it delete images it deems invalid, has made two implicit but <u>wrong</u> assumptions:
::1. That the bot is infallible
::2. That any users will necessarily notice the bot's edit before it decides to delete the image
:Thus, BetacommandBot is inherently flawed. It needs to either be defanged or permanently blocked. Preferably the former. ] (]) 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I’m concerned about the page at ]
:Another amazing fact is this bot has been run like this in the last few days: 5 days no activity, 3 days, >20,000 edits (peaking at 11,000 in one day), then for 4 days, none. I am struggling to see how anyone can't see that that is madness, especialy when you look at some of the reasons for tagging, and betacommand's talk page, or what more accurately is described as a vide-printer on acid. I have not seen the slightest piece of evidence that the bot meets one of its stated aims of not getting images deleted, or that it results in proper rationales in the whole rather than mass dumping of images and editors. ] (]) 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::That's because the bot gets blocked and/or shut down very often because of complaints; those days of no activity are more likely than not due to ] trying to fix the bot's code. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===Old discussion not finished?===
:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I have asked East718 for further responses to part of this discussion. See . ] (]) 12:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


== Permissions Removal ==
== Request for more admin eyes on an issue (RE:RfCU result) ==
{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Moved to ].
{{abot}}


== ftools is back! ==
== Broken process management on particular article ==


I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Moved to ]


:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Indefinitely blocking vanished users ==
:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


On the "Right to vanish" talk page on Meta there's been discussion about indefinitely blocking and removing all user rights from users who exercise their right to vanish. It seems like a perfectly logical step to take. The right to vanish is a serious thing that should entail serious consequences. The discussion is located ].


== Block appeal for ] ==
I'm thinking that we should adopt a standard practice when someone exercises their right to vanish on en.wiki that includes an indefinite block (including e-mail) and having any user rights removed by a steward. Thoughts? (Feel free to comment below or on Meta.) --] (]) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
:Strongly oppose. How is this a problem? Admins have left and come back. There's no need to kick them out the door on the way out. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
| status = unblock denied


| result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:This is, I presume, only for users who specifically indicate their intention to permanently vanish, and request deletion of their user page, and won't be applied willy-nilly to users who simply haven't been heard from in a while but haven't expressed any intentions regarding the future of their account? ] (]) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
}}
:Only upon request (regardless of what our blocking policy says) could be considered part of the right to leave. But not when someone just leaves. The same way some choose to leave with wikidrama, others may choose to return in silence. If someone really, really wants to leave forever, he would delete the email preference and choose a long random password which, by all means, is the same. -- ] (]) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
::Yes, sorry if there's been confusion. This is ''not'' for a {{tl|retired}} template applied in a fit of anger or anything like that (inactivity, etc.). This is for the users who have their user talk pages and user pages deleted and have made a conscious decision to split permanently from the project. --] (]) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


:I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
:::I would only support this as long as the user makes i very clear that they wish to vanish, and that they understand their account will be indef. blocked and will have all user rights removed. I do not see what harm this can do. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with this. Vanishing an account is no trivial thing; it should be done ''only'' when someone truly wants to vanish forever. If someone's gone (or at least left their account behind) forever, then there should be no issue with a block. And if they don't really intend on being gone forever, then they shouldn't be invoking the right to vanish. -] <small>]</small> 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::Amarkov, you made my point for me. ''']]''' 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree, and it sounds great on paper, but I think it happens way too often that vanished users come back. I'm unsure of the need for this, unless it is simply to emphasize that vanishing is a serious thing. I ''guess'' this would be ok, given that the user could still log in and request unblock on the talk page, but I personally, I'd have to think about this.. -- ] 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Vanished users should not be coming back under the same account. Period. The process of invoking the right to vanish involves destroying many records of bad behavior; how can we go back and undo all the edits replacing the username with "Former user X"? Vanishing and coming back with the same name looks far too much like a free user history wipe, and that is not good. -] <small>]</small> 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::(e/c)I would agree with this as well. I think part of the reason is so that ''if'' they come back, they don't just start editing again, they'd be fully un-vanished first, to avoid people using RTV as a way to hide something by only vanishing temporarily. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Where's the difference between a vanished user returning under his old username (with the bad behaviour records deleted) and a vanished user returning under a new username (with the bad behaviour records deleted)? The latter makes it even harder to spot any previous wrongdoing, actually. We would only make one of the two impossible if we'd block the vanished user, unless we treat such users as banned and block their new accounts as well. And I doubt anyone is trying to propose that. --]|] 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


:While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
:I would definitely support this. As Amarkov says, RTV should only be implemented when a user really is leaving....for good, so I see no reason not to block the account, and remove any user rights. - ] (]) 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


:My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
I don't see any need for or value to taking this step, at least in the absence of very unusual circumstances such as a user vanishing in lieu of an impending indefinite ban for serious case. Otherwise, I see this as a solution in search of a problem, and a deterrent to once-valued contributors, having become temporarily disenchanted with Misplaced Pages but then changing their minds, returning to us. ] (]) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


:Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Giving people the option for a permanent RTV block could be a good thing, if they want to really cut the cord. If that happens, I can see also deleted their talk page and protecting vs. recreation. Gone with the option of coming back, vs. gone and gone for Good with a big G. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with this is that there is no necessary correllation between how strongly a user believes that he or she wants to cut all ties to Misplaced Pages at the moment he or she is upset enough to vanish, and whether he or she might want to come back a few days or weeks or months later. People want to come and go for all sorts of reasons, both real-life-based and wiki-related, and if we eliminated from the ranks of Wikipedians everyone who at one point or another announced that he or she was leaving forever, we would be without the services of many, many decided contributors and administrators. Unless the "vanished" user had been a serious problem before departing, I don't see why we would want to add even slightly to the disincentives that face a departed user who is thinking about returning. ] (]) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Though they can always request a unblock. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::People should not request RTV if there is any possibility that they will be returning. -] (]) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) *'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Many unhappy users simply don't always think that way. People change their minds. We shouldn't discourage people from coming back unless there's a real reason to. ] (]) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Reading through the RTV page on meta, suggests it to be a permanent solution, as it should be. There are other options aside from vanishing. Users need to weigh them, and if they do decide RTV is the best way to go, that should be the end of it. - ] (]) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Like I said above, there is a real reason to. Vanishing completely destroys records of user history, and that is not good if the user isn't really gone. -] <small>]</small> 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nothing is permanently lost. If a user un-vanishes, the records are easy enough to restore. --] (]) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::NYB has it exactly right. There are plenty of irritating editors, there are a fair number who vanish, there may even be some who irritatingly vacillate between vanishing and appearing. If there are too many in the last category (which I doubt), send some of them my way and I'll vanish them and resuscitate them as requested (as long as it's merely a matter of bog-standard deletion and undeletion). I'll even welcome them back with personal messages, not tedious boilerplate. And I expect that I won't be alone in making such an offer. Meanwhile, no need to turn up the menacing tone and add to the drama. -- ] (]) 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I like the idea of indefinitely blocking departed users, but I had always assumed that the removal of userrights was standard practice. An unattended account with rights is infinitely more dangerous than a fresh vandal account. I could very quickly do a lot of damage with a compromised bot account; more still with an admin account. A compromised bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser or steward account would, of course, be disastrous. Even something like rollbacker or autoconfirmed is potentially more dangerous than a fresh account; and if the editor was well known in the community, their edits are more likely to pass unnoticed in recentchanges or watchlists than an unknown new account. An unattended account is much more likely to be compromised than a used and monitored account. And if an editor does decide to return, his or her rights can easily be restored if they left in good standing. So if removal of rights isn't ''already'' standard practice, it certainly should be. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 10:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:Many administrators or other users with higher-level user rights often give up their extra abilities upon resignation from the project, however, there has never been any solid rule that enforces all those with special rights to resign them at once should they decide to leave. I don't particularly see how an unused account has a higher probability to become compromised in any form than one that is actively used, and accounts that have been compromised have often been detected quite quickly, as prior situations have demonstrated. ] 10:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::Perhaps I should rephrase: of course the chances of someone guessing/cracking the password of an unattended account are no different to that of an account in use. But an unattended account, once cracked, can be used ''indefinitely'' by an invader, until it is realised that it has been usurped. The most common reaction to an admin account being compromised is, apparently, to edit the mainpage to a large and usually obscene image: this is a fairly good indication that the account has been compromised, and the time for them to be desysopped is usually extremely short (I've heard 3 minutes). I imagine, although I doubt it's happened, that a compromised bureaucrat account would be used first to desysop Jimbo or similar. This crude and attention-grabbing use of compromised accounts naturally results in quick identification and blocking. There are much more malicious uses a compromised account could be put to ''if'' it is possible to have some preparation time. You might be able to put a penis on the mainpage for twenty seconds with a crude edit, but if you took the time to bury it somewhere deep in the transclusion structure it could be five minutes before anyone worked out how to get rid of it. Every time I put my mind to this question I come up with more effective ways to damage the site with a stolen admin or bot account: I can think of ways to ''irreperably'' remove all external links from all pages, to slow the loading of 95% of articles to a crawl, or to place a penis at the top of all our featured articles. But with time to prepare, to make a number of edits which don't appear to be nasty until you hit the one edit that drops the lewd image, you can do more insidious damage. The point is that an active account will notice these edits: if you look at your contributions and see something you don't remember doing, and don't understand why, you would get suspicious. If there's no one legitimatley using the account, that's not going to happen.
::In fact, it's fairly immaterial whether the compromised account is used or unused by its legitimate owner. We all know that accounts with userrights can potentially be dangerous: that's ''why'' we have RfA, RfB, RfBA, etc. If the owner of the account has left, they are not going to be using their userrights for the benefit of the project, so it makes absolute sense for them to be reset. Why have more potentially dangerous accounts lying around than are genuinely necessary? I'm not saying that, once removed, those rights should not be ''restored'' if the editor returns - as I said above, if the editor left in good standing there is no reason why they should have to do anything more than ask. But leaving admin/bot/crat accounts lying around when we all know their potential for misuse strikes me as an unnecessary weakness. Take them away automatically as part of RTV, give them back automatically if they return. If their account is compromised in the meantime, they'll have to stick to ''ordinary'' vandalism. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Wow, that was longer than I expected <code>:D</code>! <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::It was pretty on the button, though. I would concur that any inactive account with a good pedigree - with extra tools or not - is a prime target. The good faith shown toward a returning editor of some standing may allow some of the less obvious malicious edits to survive much longer. ] (]) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Bureaucrats can't desysop people. Only stewards can. ] (]) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree, strongly. We have admins who "leave" the project only to come back within days. Some repeatedly. We have rules against admins blocking themselves or other users for "wikibreaks" - why are we wanting to block a user for a "rtv", which is but the ultimate "wikibreak"? Why is this, of all possible admin actions and consequences, to be the one thing you don't get to change your mind on? Yes, it's a serious act, but it's wholly in the realm of that users concern, not the projects. ] (]) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*The point in all this that seems to be being missed is that 'right to vanish' is ''serious''. When people use it to make a dramatic, pointy, disruptive exit, they are abusing the right to vanish, and that abuse is doubled if they return later. Please, if you want to leave the door open for a future return, blank your pages and use the {{tl|retired}} template, or leave some other sort of message. There seems to be a need to leave a 'message' by having your user and/or talk page links in signatures turn red. Instead of asking for pages (especially user talk pages!) to be deleted, you can leave dramatic messages and departure essays on your user page, but using 'right to vanish' as a ''standard'' departure method is wrong. Most departures can be handled other ways, and there need to be ''good reasons'' for exercising 'right to vanish'. The main one being that you really do want to vanish, or you need to disassociate from your real name. The only way, regrettably, to discourage frivolous use of the 'right to vanish' is to make much clearer that if you do return, that ''everything that was done to enable the vanishing'' '''will''' be undone, except the removal of user rights. ] (]) 08:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*I could not agree more with this. RTV ''is not'' a form of "wikibreak." Invoking the right to vanish means the user wants to leave permanently. Vanishing to create drama, only to come back a couple days later, should not be an option. RTV is a serious thing, and it should have serious consequences. --] (]) 05:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
*:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
{{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
- ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* Somehow, I can't help but feel that this is a solution to a problem we don't yet have. (There are too many people out there connected to the Internet to say definitely that any specific behavior will never occur.) What about a compromise? On the ''second'' exercise of the Right To Vanish, the user is also blocked indefinitely. If we agree to this, then let's keep a count of how many of these kinds of blocks were given, then revisit the issue in 6 months or a year. If the number of these cases are few or none, then obviously doing this is overkill; if there are a lot, then we should consider blocking after the first time this right is invoked. (And yes, I am being vague about the numbers. I would rather give this approach a try then argue if too many RTV incidents repeated, than delay the experiment because we couldn't decided how many is too many.) -- ] (]) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*This sounds like a really good compromise, llywrch. I agree that RTV is probably not being abused much, but since it has the potential for abuse, it's certainly a valid thing to have brought up. I also like the idea of leaving it at blocking the second time for good, to catch only people that it's likely to continue to be a problem with. ] <small>]</small> 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Improper RfC == == Import request ==


Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
This discussion has been moved to ].


:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== UP vio? ==
::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 ==
Is it ok ]? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hmm, the user claims that the articles belongs to him/her... this is taking ownership of the article... is that allowed? You are allowed to put articles that I have created/started but '''My''' articles? --] ] ] <sup>]</sup> 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
: Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
::Not only that, questioning Admin's AfD closing decision also. (see the last one). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Sure why not? Non-admins are allowed to question admin decisions and express disagreement, if they want. As for "My articles", I don't see the problem there, either. He just seems to be listing the articles he wrote or started. He doesn't say, "they're mine and no one else is allowed to edit them". As long as he doesn't try to stop people editing them, I don't see the problem. We try to give people some latitude on their userpages. You (IP), should sign up for an account so you can have your own userpage. ] 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Check . All the users who have "My articles" sections and pages. Even some admins, if I'm not mistaken. :) ] 10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


{{ivmbox|1=
::::Ah OK! :) --] ] ] <sup>]</sup> 10:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The ] are amended by adding the following section:
<blockquote>
; Coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.


Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
:::::Strange as it may seem, you start to bond with articles you've worked with a lot. At least that's the case for me. ''''']]]''''' 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
== {{article|Hal Turner}} stubbified ==
* Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
* Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
* Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
* Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
* Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.


A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
This is notification that I have blanked the article {{article|Hal Turner}}, for constant violations of ], in particular, opinionated against subject, even in the lede, and many "citation needed" tags, very controversial figure.. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:As long as this is being blanked, I'm tempted to delete it per ]. However, there are over a thousand revisions, and I personally don't have the patience to go through every one of them for one with no BLP concerns. (The five or so random ones I clicked on, including the first one, did.) - ] 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have sprotected the article for 24 hours. At the time there was a only a banner commenting the article has been blanked. I would very much prefer that there was at least a stub article available for the readership, and the ugly banner was removed. I hope that consensus for a previous stub to be re-instated pending expiry of the protection will soon form on the talkpage. I am happy for another admin or uninvolved editor to edit the article to replace the banner with such a stub without referring to me, ''providing that that consensus exists''. Also, generally, please start talking folks! ] (]) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

== ]'s talk page: Forced merge and restoration appropriate? ==

] has deleted his talk page, and broken up the (deleted) history across many subpages. I personally feel this violates the ], and advised Caltrop about this twice. The first time I received no response, the second he told me that if I had a problem with policy violation, I should take it to arbcom. As any admin can undo something that is against policy, I would rather come here and gain consensus then go through the arbcom procedure, though I will do that if needed. Am I overreacting, or incorrect? I think none of us are above policy here. Also see ], with the comment "goading user prodego", which I feel is also problematic. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:That's horrible! Barring a ''very'' good explanation from Caltrop, I cannot possibly see how constitute anything other than an attempt to render the history of his talk page unreadable. Deletion is very clearly proscribed as an archiving technique in ], and rendering an archive visible only to admins is inappropriate in normal circumstances. Putting the history back together will be an absolute ''pig'', but unless Caltrop can explain ''very clearly'' why this is not sinister, I fully support anyone who is prepared to do it. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::This is ridiculous. Personally, I think he should have to fix it but if you're willing, go right ahead. If he does it again, block him. ] 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not sinister at all. If you check the history you will see where I enlisted the help of other admins to piece back my history after I mistakenly made a pig's breakfast of it after I was notified of the consensus policy of archiving talk pages. In previous years the talk page was akin to an email inbox. My inbox contains little to be proud of or ashamed of. Sinister, I think not. I think that Prodego should go fight serious crime elsewhere and let me continue my record of years of useful service and generous donations to Misplaced Pages. I have no knowledge of Prodego, but really there must be more sinister things to battle than a boring and garbled talk page. Anyone want to put this mess back together? Good luck, two other admins and I couldn't do it. Personally I don't agree with the consensus policy because I still view Talk as my inbox, but I also understand the reason for the policy, but I throw up my hands at this mess. You want to resurrect zillions of requests to give sources for images I created and thought were long deleted? And which were created before the new (and proper) cite your sources rule? Heaven help us all. Read my boring articles. Check my minor copyedits. I think you will find nothing you'll care about. Just someone who has been here since NuPedia with a pedant's sense (or lack of sense) of what an interesting article is. ] (]) 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::That is all well and fine, except that I told you I was willing to do it for you twice, and you continue you delete your talk page, including the very message I sent you so recently explaining why not to do it. So to be clear, I may restore it, and you will stop deleting it? It would have been much simpler for you to have agreed to that ''before'' rather then suggesting I take it to arbcom, if you are aware it is wrong, and that I offered to try to rectify it. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of theory Prodego is absolutely right, but according to ], Caltrop feels sufficiently beleaguered at being pressed on this matter that he is considering leaving the project. The matter does not seem to be worth jeopardizing the participation of a contributor of some 7 years' standing, and I hope that a reasonable and amicable solution here can be reached. ] (]) 02:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:I did not realize that such a trivial policy issue was such a huge issue for Caltrop that he would consider leaving the project over it. My lack of understanding is compounded since I offered to do all the work to fix this myself, even after he went out of his way to "goad user prodego" Not only that, he says he attempted to restore the page before, so how could it possibly hurt to have another user attempt to do it? I personally would appreciate assistance in something I was unable to fix before, and I often look to others in situations where I am lost. (i.e. ] on ]) If ''anyone'' should be frustrated it should be ''me'' for being openly "goaded", ignored when asking for clarification, and then told to go to arbcom if I wanted to fix this page, which Caltrop does not ], since obviously "longstanding admin", as he put it, are not subject to policy. I think that Caltrop is way out of line here. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 03:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prodego on this, it's just so wrong on so many levels to constantly delete your talk page. It might not be the intent but it certainly has the effect of preventing good faith non-admins from following discussions and adds to the sense of elitist adminship. Unless there is a good reason for deleting it, such as personal information etc, it should be restored as much as possible and the user should stop deleting it. It also isn't appropriate to respond to a fellow admin's message by ignoring it and then deleting it from the page history. I also agree with Caltrop that he should probably take a break and a very deep breath if he would have such a reaction to a reasonable inquiry from a fellow admin offering to repair his page. ] 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:I have completed it. Note that the deletions make it look like some users blanked the page to add their comment, but the history is completely intact. I left things I couldn't explain at ], and archived what pages were merged in the history of ]. Some superfluous material lives in the deleted history of ] as well. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 01:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Backlog ==

{{Partly Resolved|Backlog cleared, conversation about bot still taking place}}
It looks like ] is getting a pretty good size backlog, just FYI. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:"Whew" *Wipes sweat from face*, that was hard...but it looks pretty clear now. :P ] <sup>]</sup> 23:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::That's three times today... Odd, for a Thursday. Perhaps we could get one of the AIV Helperbots to drop a note here (or ]) when it gets beyond 8 or 10 pending reports? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::10 seems reasonable. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I'll post a note at AIV's talk page, when I get home tonight. If it's a heavy day like today, then the time I and two others took to seek assistance at ANI or here could have been spent checking a vandal, helping the backlog. It's rare enough that it's not of pressing concern - unless tomorrow is busier - but it might be worth discussing. I know Helperbot 7 was recently approved, maybe their op would add the function? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 02:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Unblock request ==

I received the following unblock appeal by e-mail, with permission to post it. What does the community think? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Sigh. Please don't indulge these people. They've been trolling us consistently for at least three years and are continuing to do so by having people post their messages here after being rebuffed by OTRS and unblock-en-l. Their most recent socks have just be rooted out and blocked after a lot of work both on and off site by administrators and checkusers both on WP and other non-foundation projects and their IPs shut down by checkusers. See the ] thread on Solumeiras for Lar's description of their longterm abuse and his description of the discussions among checkusers. Also note Matt's comment from 18 months ago that I linked to on ANI. Once again, these people are playing us for fools. They may have been 16 when they started, but they continued until as recently as yesterday. If they want to have their ban reconsidered they need to go away for awhile and stop trolling us on multiple fronts first because we've heard, "I'm sorry, I've learned my lesson" before. Many times before. As for forgiving Willy on Wheels, well, that's rather telling as there are admins, CUs and foundation people who believe that these are the kids behind the WoW abuse and it's rather ironic that the sockpuppet happened to be the one who removed WoW from the list of banned people claiming that WoW was welcome here. Please, don't be sucked in by these people. ] 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:I've removed the email because I think they've manipulated Durova into posting on their behalf because yesterday a checkuser hardblocked their IP. If anyone wants to see the email it's . ] 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Hell no.''' They've been saying the same things on . I don't trust them at all. And there's evidence that they've run XRumer, via an account and one or two IP addresses. <font face="Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small></font> 03:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
: Agree with the above, everytime we track down and block we get the same sob stories, claims of aspergers, claims of autism, mental illness, it's x and they've had their web access remove, the original from the sunholm/sunfazer days along the lines of "it was a public ip, but my friend who is the network engineer has reassigned it to me" etc. etc. It's long past being old. --] (]) 07:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::FWIW, I wasn't manipulated. I received a request and put it to the community for discussion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I have absolutely no interest in (nor has anyone demonstrated any reason to) unblock(ing) this account. This is another example of someone who is paying the price for abusing the community's trust. - ] &#124; ] 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Seriously, I was, and am still, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I know that you have a standing offer to do this for users who have sat out a reasonable time (is it 6 months?) without using socks to evade their blocks and bans and causing other disruption to the project, but this person was caught using socks just the day before they emailed you this request. They have literally just been banned and we've just cleaned up after and blocked their recent socks. And the only reason I could think that you would post this for them was if you were manipulated and not aware of the facts. Their emails are full of lies and I'm not prepared to waste time refuting all their blatant lies other than to note here, for the record, that the people who were emailing OTRS, unblock-en-l and various editors and admins, myself included, under various pseudonyms to complain about the blocks and to protest their innocence and so on were using the IP 82.42.237.84 and this just happens to be one of SunStar Net/Solumeiras's IP addresses. They've been trolling us for at least three years, causing the most unbelievable amount of vandalism and disruption, and they are continuing to troll us now. I still have Matt Brown's words from eighteen months ago ringing in my head: "The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again." ] 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::And seriously, there's no need to respond in a heated manner. I have not supported this bid for reinstatement. Just because I have a standing offer under certain conditions doesn't mean every request I relay comes with any endorsement. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't think I'm being heated. Not in the slightest. I'm just having trouble understanding why you're doing this given the circumstances. That is all. ] 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Covention requests to be "unlinked" ==

A little history about what has been going on at the article ]. In July of 2007, one of the staffers of ] repeatedly added a message to the article telling readers that they should check the convention's website for the "latest information" about the convention. This resulted in a minor edit war that resulted in the "announcement" being removed from the article.

Now the same editor, first as an IP, is back adding in unverifiable information about the attendance of the 2008 convention which is to be held this coming April. I removed the information under ] but the editor kept reinserting the information because it has been "confirmed" by the convention and was therefore official.. After I informed the editor about Misplaced Pages's policies on ] through third-party sources and that Wikipeida is not a place for the convention's staff to ], the staffer attempted to remove information about this year's convention from the article, which has be reverted, and requested that the Misplaced Pages, "not link to this convention", whatever the heck that means. Apparently, the staffer is unhappy that the article cannot be used as a mouthpiece for the convention. --''']''' (]) 00:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Placing community ban on ] et al ==

This is to inform the community that I will be adding the above named user to the list of banned users, and to invite discussion or to see if there was any dissenting opinions to this. I will explain my reasons below for this action, and the timeline of this situation:

End of 2005- Beginning of 2006: ] was banned by ArbCom in the ArbCom case ] (this ArbCom case was courtesy deleted by the request of the person involved in August 2007. I have restored it solely for this discussion), for legal threats regarding an article about a politician in the United Kingdon who was identified either as a "traditional conservative" or a "right-wing extremist", depending on your point of view. (This article has since been deleted and redirected.) ] also posted via IP addresses, and self-identified as this politician when he edited via IP addresses. This ArbCom Case closed on January 31st, 2006.

7 February 2006: The account ] is created, and goes on editing much in the same way as ]

11 May 2006: The account ] is created.

20 June 2006: ] was indefblocked for sending a solicitor's letter to legally threaten another Wikipedian, on articles, amongst other things, the since redirected article mentioned above. The solicitor's letter was signed as the politican above. You can see the ANI Discussion .

23 June 2006: The account ] created.

29 November 2006: ] creates a new account on Misplaced Pages

October 2007: ] and ] were involved in the very contentious ArbCom case ].

Yesterday: ], ], ] and ] were all found to be at times editing in ways that contravene Misplaced Pages policy. The CheckUser's comment on this finding was: '''I can confirm that they''' (being David Lauder, Chelsea Tory, and Sussexman) '''have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other.''' The first three are matched as hits.. the fourth, Counter-revolutionary, had edited from that same machine, but not as often. You can see the CheckUser result

At the time of the Checkuser ], ] was advocating that ] be unblocked. ] had previously advocated for the unblock.

So, this twice blocked user (once via ArbCom ban, once via ANI discussion, both for legal threats) has now apparently moved on to either using direct meatpuppets or sockpuppets to disrupt Misplaced Pages.

I am bringing this to AN to confirm what should already be obvious. The person behind this account is not here to build an encyclopedia. He first attempted to write a glowing puff-piece of an article about himself as a politician, and when that dream was sabotaged by other editors (including, admittedly, some people who had a bone to pick with his politics), he turned to legal threats and disruption of Misplaced Pages. He is therefore banned from Misplaced Pages, unless other administrators object. ] (]) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:''The person behind this account is not here to build an encyclopedia.''
:: Just to be fair, under ] this person has made substantial content contributions, including ] (]!), ], ], I could go on for a while. For all his misdemeanors he still deserves credit where it is due. Regards, ] (<small>]</small>) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Even if true, his history far outweighs his contributions, no matter how laudable. ] (]) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: I'm not denying that of course, just trying to be fair. He can be perma-banned after all without a total '']'' in addition! :) ] (<small>]</small>) 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:: A couple of points; while I certainly endorse a community ban on David Lauder, given the evidence to-date, including the now-undeleted ArbCom case (I was completely shocked by that one), I'd like a little more clarification on ''"et al"''. Specifically, who else of the editors discovered during the checkuser case should come under this ban? If that includes ], I might have a bit of a problem with that as I see him as being guilty of collusion and meat-puppetry but not as a sock or a major player here. Indeed, I'm still concerned about his indefinite block. I'd also note that David Lauder had a substantive history of constructive editing so to say he ''"is not here to build an encyclopedia"'' is a little unfair - ] <sup>]</sup> 01:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::If Counter-revolutionary is willing to leave off using multiple accounts (when I talked via email to him, he was asking to RtV and promised not to use any of the other accounts he had), and not edit as a proxy for ], I see why no reason he shouldn't be unblocked. I will ask him directly via email, now.

:::The et all was to indicate that the accounts directly controlled (Robert I, Sussexman, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory) and any future accounts should be blocked. I wasn't sure what account to log it under, that was the et all. (and I note that a LOT of the positive contributions noted by Deacon of Pndapetzim were about things that he could have a COI about, if they are related to his real-life identity.) ] (]) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: I support a ban on Lauder and his sock-puppets. Counter-revolutionary I am not so sure about. My understanding is that most people intimate with the details are of the impression that he is probably a different individual, albeit one closely involved with Lauder and who has engaged in some tandem editing in the past. Thats not cool, of course, but its not really that unusual among editors involved in and around the Troubles. Therefore, if he is a different person, then I'm not sure there is any good reason he should remain indef blocked, much less banned. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Per ] ] may well be Gregory Lauder-Frost, or he's definitely someone closely connected to him. When ] ] said "I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received". It's established that Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer (but to a lesser extent).

:::::As can be seen by my comments , I was expecting "discussion on the other possibly on TER, especially with regards to COI". I wasn't in favour of an indef block (although I wasn't necessarily opposed to it), more a possible COI restriction on the ] related articles he has a very close connection to based on his image uploads, in particular the images of Gregory Lauder-Frost taken in various countries over a ten year period (see Sussexman checkuser for details). Counter-revolutionary '''is not''' an "innocent bystander" in all this. He's clearly involved in the whole situation up to his neck, he knows what has gone on and who is who. If he's prepared to be honest and open about this I'd support an unblock under certain restrictions. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:I support the ban of 's accounts. The David Lauder account has made useful contributions in Scottish history, as Deacon of Pndapetzim observed. There may be mild COI implications in his insistence on Victorian histories and genealogies as the last word on scholarly material, but I am uneasy with the notion that his contributing to ], ], etc., is ''ipso facto'' a COI — similar accusations have been voiced in Troubles-related cases, IMO more for the purpose of bludgeoning those foolish enough to reveal their real-world identity on Misplaced Pages that for any encyclopedic purpose. All that said, it's clear in retrospect that even before the checkuser, there's a remarkable convergence of editing interests between David Lauder and 's previous incarnations; I'm a little surprised no one familiar with the previous case didn't call for a checkuser long ago. Given the legal threats and various other unpleasant circumstances surrounding the original ban, compounded by the sockpuppetry and vote-stacking practiced by the current incarnation, I don't see any reason to lift the ban, even for positive and apolitical historical contributions. As for Counter-revolutionary, he's aided and abetted some quite disruptive quarrels on behalf of someone whom Misplaced Pages told to get lost a while ago. Blocks are not punitive, but any conditions for his return need to address his own COI issues and proxying. ] (]) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I supported this block in the discussion at ], but there are a few things I would like to note here:
#As ] noted, {{User|David Lauder}} ''did'' make many positive contributions. Sure, there were also some suspect contributions too and persistent unwillingness to consider world-views other than his own, but DL's misconduct should not be used to obscure the positive contributions he made, including writing several well-written and well-referenced articles.
#Lauder insists on his talk page ]. I understand that checkuser has some limitations, but it seems to me that changing IPs cannot account for the pattern of behaviour shown here. So I have two suggestions:
#*Can someone else with checkuser powers ''but who was not in any way involved in the Troubles arbcom case'' recheck Alison's tests? Personally, I have full trust in Alison, but for the sake of avoiding any accusations directed at her, an independent confirmation of her checkuser results would remove any scope for accusations of bias.
#*How robust is the checkuser system? It seems to me to be an inherently rather simple system (IPs are logged, database is scanned for IPs used by particular users, matches are reported), but given Lauder's outright denials, it would be useful to have confirmation that the code has been checked for robustness.
--] <small>] • (])</small> 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
: Hi there. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with anybody else running a checkuser on the accounts and coming to whatever conclusions they see fit, indeed I welcome it. In terms of RFCU work, it's a pretty straightforward case, really - ] <sup>]</sup> 08:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's established that Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. '''Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer''' (but to a lesser extent)." That section I have highlighted says a lot in my opinion. They are up to their gills in it, and should be treated the same. I don't mean to sound hard, but I'm sick sore and tired of the disruption this causes. They have made it difficult because of their carry on to ], when new accounts pop up (with a detailed knowledge of our policies) and start editing on Troubles related article. I been made to feel like a thick, the number of times I've had editors gang up on me only to discover it was the same editor. Thats just my opinion anyway. --] (]) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:*Lets get this clear. I am no saint - infact I am a sinner. My sins are wide and varied, I have caused a lot of trouble in my time and spent months '''blocked'''. There were ] on here that wanted me out and only for the storng voice of a ] I am sure I would be gone.

Must of my trouble has stemmed for arguements with a group of editors - usually the same ones, they appear to adopt the and have got me in more shit than I care to remember. I always thought that I was dealing with a group of editors and this got me in a lot more trouble as on a number of occasions it looked like

The '''WHOLE''' Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts and that is what pisses me off the most.

I could go on and on about this issue but I wont as I dont really want to get involve but I just want to end by showing you ] which I believe was the kick off of the Troubles issue that roared for many months. If Lauder et al had been acting honestly and in good faith from the begining then we wouldnt have had the month and months of hassle with resepct to these issue and we would have saved a lot of editors and admins a lot of grey hair.
((The previous comment was posted by ].. I'm surprised that Sinebot didn't get him)) ] (]) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:Looks to be in order with me. ] (]) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:What we are discussing here is adding a community ban to an existing ArbComm ban. The first remedy in that ArbComm case, unless we have evidence that "all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment" then the user is already banned by ArbComm. We don't have any evidence that the multiple legal disputes are withdrawn or resolved. I don't know if we need to add a community ban to the ArbComm ban, but I don't object to doing so.] 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

* I was closely involved with the article on {{la|Gregory Lauder-Frost}} (see and ), and with Sussexman and Chelsea Tory as well as the numerous anonymous friends they brought wiht them. Personal legal threats were made to Misplaced Pages editors whose real identities were inferred, including at least one solicitor's letter. We fixed a serious problem with that article ''despite'' their involvement, not because of it. I don't know why they were not banned at the time, other than that a "fishing expedition" would have been rejected by RFCU. It comes as no surprise to learn that they are all if not related then at least working in very close collaboration. I suggest that interested parties ask William Pietri for input, as another closely involved participant in that dispute. If people want to question indefinite blocking in this case, I suggest arbitration - the sockpuppetry, legal threats and other abuse, including apparent ban evasion, would seem to me to be at the very least worthy of a trip to ArbCom. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
*I was only peripherally aware of the Troubles ArbCom when it was on, noticing merely that it seemed filled with some extraordinary bad faith. However, I saw at the time nothing to distinguish it from several other ArbCom cases involving difficult hyper-nationalist editors. Recently I began editing some of the articles over which these accounts have established a pattern of ownership, including ] and ]. I was met with considerable resistance and some great incivility, though I've been subject to worse. At some point one of the account left a 'note' on another account's talkpage warning them of the wild-eyed Bolshie who'd turned up to vandalise their articles. There was certainly a touch of tag-team reverting involved; and I was 'reported' for my 'vandalism' to AN/I - ] is still up there. (Where, entertainingly, it was speculated that ''I'' was someone's puppet.) It was only after I did some poking around in edit histories, discovering some puzzling deletions and so on that I asked a few discreet questions and discovered the history, which was plainly shocking. (Turns out there's an off-wiki mirror as well.) It was becoming obvious that these accounts were closely connected, and that they were using their artificial consensus to disrupt editing across a swathe of articles to which they had undoubted connections off-wiki. (Judging by image uploads.) This is unacceptable.
:If an indefblock is considered too harsh, I would strongly recommend a '''community ban from editing any and all articles related to the right-wing of the Tory party, the House of Lords, and republicanism'''. If their energy can be redirected to safely apolitical genealogical research and COI-free articles of pretenders to Eastern European monarchies, it will probably not be disruptive. However, having viewed the ArbCom, I can certainly understand if we simply don't want this person - or two people, at most - around. Many - perhaps most - '''people who have been community banned have been banned for less obvious disruption'''. ] (]) 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I strongly support unblocking Counter-revolutionary, or well reframing his block to being something less than a month. I also agree with BHG that check user is pretty unreliable (and indeed should be overhauled but that isn't for here) but it is better at proving guilt than innocence. I would also support unblocking Lauder with the agreement that he doesn't edit political articles relating to the UK (which includes the Troubles, of course). Thanks, ] 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Re:Lauder... heck no. he's been blocked/banned TWICE for legal threats (not just.. "If you don't do what I want I'll sue you". type idle threats on WP (which is bad enough), but actual legal threats from his solicitor, sent to an editor's home address. (See the Sussexman discussion linked above). Technically, as said above, he's already banned, because he never fufilled the first ban's requirements (a full apology and payment of any all legal fees incurred as a result of the threats) ] (]) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''support ban''' - after reading this and the ssp report I think a community ban is in order for the DL and directly related. I'm not sure about ], and would support topic restrictions and similar restraints discussed above. --] (]) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Ban''' - This question pretty much answers itself. By the time you've gotten to the point of socking/meating to avoid an Arbcom block, you're as valuable to the Project as a hand-grenade in a china shop. Throw away the key and lets move on. As for counter-revolutionary, at best he's a ] and a Checkuser-proven meat-puppet of a disruptive indefblocked user. At worst he's just another David Lauder sock. Even his user-name touts his political agenda. How precisely does any of this indicate that we should give him the benefit of the doubt? <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye</span><small><sup><i>]</i></sup></small> 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Bans''' Certain individual(s) having been waging a campaign for over 2 years attacking anyone who gets in their way, all the accounts are inexplicably links --] ] ] 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support ban''' - two things say it all: "The WHOLE Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts" - VintageKits, and "Personal legal threats were made to Misplaced Pages editors whose real identities were inferred, including at least one solicitor's letter." - Guy. Lauder has got to go. I do believe that I also may have had some experience with this user (see ]; looks like I guessed wrong), and thought the user should be banned simply on this brief encounter (which, to date, no one has mentioned that I can see). You cheat this badly, for this long, then you are not responsible enough to edit here, and this block sure is heck is a preventative one if I ever saw one (for all the disruption caused). ] (]) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support ban''' As per my previous comments. In addition, they were already banned! --] (]) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

===Queries===
As ] is blocked and so unable to answer any of the accusations here at all, might someone point out to him:
* How anything he has edited has any connection whatsoever with Chelsea Tory & the blocked User Sussexman.
* If ] was originally the same person/sockpuppet how is he not so?
* How is David Lauder suddenly responsible for 'The Troubles' ArbCom which was initiated by the indefinite banning of ]?
* User the checkuser can we be absolutely certain, looking at ]'s edits (and he has been blocked for 20 months has he not?) that David Lauder' ISP is exactly the same as Sussexmans?
* What would you say the actual connexion, offensive or otherwise, is between David Lauder and ] (who I see has now decamped)?
* How can David Lauder be connected with anything which happened on Misplaced Pages 18 months or more ago when it appears he wasn't with us then and has never edited anything in that political zone?
As I don't wish to be involved I am asking these questions generally. I hope you will consider them. ] (]) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== {{userlinks|Pending deletion script}} ==

This is a bot account unused since 2005 and it appears to have admin powers (there are logs of it deleting things although there are no rights logs for it). I think it would be a good idea to desysop/block this account. -] 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:The name "script" indicates it is probably part of one of the Mediawiki (the software running Misplaced Pages) update scripts, that was used in a previous update (possibly the Phase III update). There is no need to touch it. Also see ]. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::The user page says its a holdover from when Admins couldn't delete articles. Its controlled by ], so I'd start there if I had questions. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::It does not appear to have administrator rights, although it does run with a bot flag. Nard, did you intend to say that its userpage gives the ''impression'' of it being an administrator account? ] (]) 12:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== {{User|USACASNATIONAL}} block review ==

I originally blocked this user for 3RR, content deletion, potentially libelous statement reasons. However, after seeing their comment to me on their talk page after I left the block notice, I changed the block to indefinite. The editor has also used {{User|UKC CASSA}}, {{User|CASSA}}, and {{User|74.78.174.145}}. Finally, the editor is part of a WP:COI/N notice ]. If anybody has an issue with my escalating block to indef, feel free to comment or reverse. -- ] (]) 08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:Seems fine to me, harassment and disruption aren't on at all. ] (]) 10:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:"Next time it will be kids". Gahahahaha... ] (]) 01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

] uploaded this image last month and it came to my attention at ]. I speedied it under CSD:I7 on February 13th because it was tagged with a currency fair use tag but was a transport ticket. ] restored it a couple of hours later. Since then, Party is slow-reverting to place various classes of public domain tags on it, using rationales such as "it's a expired bus pass so it may be used according to the owner" and "Public domain image, since it's a governement organism". A permission was sent to OTRS , although I am not able to read it.

During the matter, Party has also and .

I have now listed the image on ] pending receipt from an OTRS user of the text of the permission, to see whether it is indeed a PD or free license release. We may also be able to justify a non-free use (in which case the image will need scaling down) but need to first work out the copyright status of the image.

Can someone please explain public domain to Party better than I can? ] (]) 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:I undeleted the image assuming good faith that Party would be able to find an appropriate tag, or permission. Party seems to be endeavouring to do this, and my suggestion would be to wait for a couple more days for the permissions to smooth themselves out. The OTRS ticket is unclear. It states that the images are released to the public and AMT has no objection to them appearing on WP. There's a "but" to the permission later on though, but my French skills (specifically lack thereof) make me unsure about my translation of that part - so I won't paraphrase it here.
:My feeling is that the email on OTRS *doesn't* express a full release into the public domain. Now, whether the tickets actually are PD and AMT is trying to impose a constraint on them is an interesting question - before undeleting the image I took a look at other ticket images on Misplaced Pages, and, where they were scans, they seemed to be released into PD or under the GFDL nearly all the time.
:Having said all of this, my feeling is that there is no need to delete the image when, if a free licence cannot be securely obtained, it can be safely used under fair use to illustrate the "Fares" section of the AMT article. I think we just need to wait for clarification from AMT via OTRS. Thanks, ]''']''' 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::If you or anyone emails or otherwise communicates to me the content of the OTRS ticket I would be obliged. I can speak/read French. ] (]) 15:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::The email has already been replied to, and the terms of release given by AMT are currently not sufficient (the "but..." statement noted above and it is unclear if it was released for all use or just on Misplaced Pages). I should also note that permissions for this, and other images where permissions are sent to OTRS, should be given much more than a couple days for someone to confirm the permission. The OTRS permission queue has a backlog of ~370 open tickets, 100 of which are in permissions-en (though this specific one was put into permissions-fr, which only has 2, so it should get picked up quickly when we get a reply) <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, ] and all closely-related pages are subject to ] (]); editors working on ], or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (]).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (]). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,<br>] (]) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:The last link should be linked to ] rather than ] (which is to a non-existent anchor). <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">] ]</span></span> 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::My apologies for that—thank you for noticing. ] (]) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Message for granting rollback ==

I noticed a user who did vandal fighting and no edit warring so I decided to grant them ]. I could not find a standardized message for "welcome to rollback" so I ]. Do people think this is a good idea? Should it be moved to some place in the template namespace? I don't think ] quite applies as it's more of an award. <font face="monospace">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:I created ], which was moved to ], and there's also ] as well. There is nothing wrong with your userspace template, however. I think the templates are fine. ] 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Didn't see those as they weren't in ]. I like your wording better so I merged in some of the features from my version into ]. <font face="monospace">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::The merge looks good. Fine work on improving the template. One question though: with the user rights log link in the template now, if I grant a user rollback, and leave the template on their talk page, will the link show them that their rights have been changed? ] 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::When the template gets placed (and substituted) on User talk:FooUser, it creates a link to the user rights log of User:FooUser. This will show all users rights changes for that user, including those made before or after you place the message. Therefore if you place the message before granting rights, the rights will be shown in the link as soon as you grant them, and if someone later changes that user's rights, that will also be reflected. <font face="monospace">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Okay then: thanks for the clarification. ] 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Usernames being blocked, is this according to policy? ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Usernames#Company.2Fgroup_names

"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended..."

The policy states that use of a company name as a user name is not recommended but it is not prohibited. I used to think that all corporate names are prohibited and are to be blocked but I see this is not the case.

Should we stop blocking people for this reason? Or should we just ask that users certify that they are not a group account. ] (]) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:My personal rule on this is I block only if the user is using Misplaced Pages for advertising their group, business, what have you. If a user like "KevinsShoeWarehouse" created the article ] or adds the business to an article like ], that deserves a block. And really, unless they're using WP to advertise, it's pretty tough to tell if a username is a business, group, etc. Of course, if a user chooses the name of a very well known business or group, it is my opinion that they should be blocked, as this invites potential lawsuits, e.g. if a user named "Microsoft" vandalizes ]. Cheers, ] ] 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::The way I come by most company usernames is as faithless says above, they post ana d for their company. More generally, I think we assume that if its a group name, then its a ] account. Also, for major corps, there is of course the trademark issue. Even if ] didn't edit movie articles, there would still be the concern of trademark dilution. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::This came up recently. We assume it's a role account unless we get confirmation (somehow, OTRS I guess) that it's used by only one user. I'm not sure what the relevant policy page is. ] (]) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

: The other problem is that of people believing the account represents the company in some official capacity, either to push a certain view point or to vandalise. The question aside from advertising, is the username likely to be confusing or misleading? --] (]) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] - image/logo ==

]]I am aware that on ], some people have been wanting an image of the GNU logo. <s>Well, it took me a while, and I had to look on the source coding for , but I finally uploaded the logo (at right)</s> and would like to put it on ]. Unfortunately, the page is full-protected; could someone put the image on there? Please? <font face="terminal">]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ])</font> 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:Ok, never mind, it was already uploaded (already uploaded on left). But can someone still put it on the above mentioned page? <font face="terminal">]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ])</font> 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::Wow, are seriously suggesting that ] of the GNU ''free'' documentation license is actually non-free? A few things: 1) the image is already on the Wikimedia Commons, it is a free image. 2) ] is a free image as well, so you mistagged your image, and you can remove the non-free rationale as well. 3) If it was non-free, it wouldn't be allowed to be placed on ], per ], but since it is free, it can be if someone wants to put it on there (but more than likely they would be putting ] on there, not your image). — ] ] 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I am a little hesitant about implementing the suggested change, above, primarily because I am unsure of the legal status of that page. Whilst I would not go so far as to say adding an image to the page could, in some way, compromise the page's text, I do believe we need to use some discretion in applying the Wiki ethos of "be bold" to the sole copy of this site's license.

:::I do believe the page's function is to be an exact replica of the license itself. The image may be interpreted as a cosmetic improvement—something that will affect the text of the page no more than, say, changing the skin with which an editor views the page. On the other hand, it may indeed raise a few eyebrows. Perhaps we should simply avoid any problems altogether, and simply leave the page be? ] (]) 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== The dog ate my homework ==

I’d like to start a discussion about dealing with accounts who respond to accusations of sockpuppetry with “It was my roommate, we edit from the same computer and have identical interests. Why, is that not allowed? No one told me, I had no idea.”

The current policy at ] already addresses this, (even more so after Jehochman’s recent addition) and notes that it can be treated the same as sockpuppetry. However, the “Why, is that not allowed? No one told me, I had no idea” part of this means that what will actually happen is an accusation of sock puppetry, followed by this defense, will result in the user being “notified” of this provision, and told not to do it anymore. One free pass, as it were.

Yes, I know about AGF, and once in a blue moon, I suppose the dog really does eat the homework. But no teacher automatically accepts this excuse, and says “well next time, keep the homework away from the dog, but you don’t need to turn your homework in this one time.” At least none of my teachers ever did. Giving puppeteers one free pass before there is any consequence greatly increases the likelihood that this gambit will be used by everyone accused of sockpuppetry.

In cases where the existence of a similarly-minded roommate is a distinct possibility, I’m resigned that the solution above is the best we can do. If I had any great ideas, I’d propose them, but I don’t. Instead I’m asking for a discussion to see if anything can be improved, and Jehochman suggested AN might be a good place to discuss this.

The only thing I’d throw out there is a suggestion that in the future, we might consider actively attempting to disprove the excuse whenever possible, and imposing much more severe consequences on those who abuse it, so that others aren’t encouraged to try the same thing. In other words, at the very least, I suggest we find out if the student actually has a dog or not. --] (]) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is - why _isn't_ it allowed? We are, in these cases, holding two adults responsible for one another's actions with absolutely no basis. Assuming that it really is two different people, '''why''' are two different people who live near each other and have similar interests ''not'' allowed to both edit? Checkuser data interpretation techniques have gotten more sophisticated and I've noticed that the checkusers have been getting more confident in saying they are sure that it is or is not the case; so if we are in fact reasonably sure that it is two different people, why should these be treated any differently from two people who are geographically remote than one another? —] 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::Two separate people most definitely '''should''' be allowed to edit from the same computer, as long as they either disclose their interconectedness, or avoid <s>editing</s> reverting <small>edited for clarity per Lara's comment below</small> the same articles or voting in CFD's <small>ditto</small>. I think that's what most people have always assumed, and that's what Jehochman's clarification of WP:SOCK a few hours ago puts into writing. I'm more concerned with this being a free pass to sock with no consequences. --] (]) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:The comment I'd have is why can't there be a warning when a person registers that their IP is tracked and they shouldn't edit the same topics from a common computer. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::When the edits are coming from the same IP, it's not so much an issue that they're editing the same articles, as long as their not backing each other in conversations, or avoiding 3RR by alternating reverts, etc. At that point, it doesn't matter if the accounts are one person or two. Sock or meatpuppet, either way is unacceptable. Am I wrong? Do you block people who share an IP and only edit constructively? ''']''']''']''' 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Well no, the concern is abuse (or what looks like abuse), not erecting a wall between people that live together or know each other in real life. But a Checkuser wouldn't really be run on two editors only editing constructively, so this shouldn't be an issue. I'm not interested in knowing about anybody's personal life, I don't need to know it it's a friend, roommate, partner, etc, or if the user lives in a dorm with one IP, or anything. A short "This user, and ] share an IP address and recognize the requirements of ]", placed on ]'s page, should do it. The question is, whether something can be adjusted to make it more difficult for one person to rely on this explanation to shield him from consequences the first time he's caught. --] (]) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::I seem to remember a case where 3 people worked in the same office with a common IP subnet. They agreed not to edit the same articles and declare the common IP, which was acceptable. Barneca makes a good point that a checkuser wouldn't be run unless something suspicious was going on, so 2 editors not-meatpuppeting and making constructive contributions, probably would go un-noticed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::The checkusers also have some discretion here. Two accounts who both trace to the shared IP of a large university or corporation may very well be independent. Two accounts who tandem-revert a single obscure article and trace to a single residential IP are violating ], regardless of whether there are two people taking turns at the keyboard or one. It probably ought to be intuitively obvious that this is gaming the system, even if it's two people, particularly when they see their "adversary" blocked for 3RR. As has been noted, this was not an innocent case of two people with shared interests, but a case of overt tag-team edit-warring. The bottom line is that our policies are intended to facilitate the goal of writing a collaborative encyclopedia. This sort of editing is disruptive and counterproductive whether it's one or two people manipulating the accounts, and it should be dealt with accordingly. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

*I suggest a template notice is rustled up that people can put on their user pages if they are aware that their IP is shared with other users (be that a community, corporate, university or household sharing). There is no need to explicitly name those other users, unless there are other reasons to make the community aware of such connections between accounts. In other words: a notice for checkusers to read and be aware of information they need to interpret the checkuser data correctly. If people are unaware that their IP is being shared, then they will have learnt a lesson the hard way. Or a similar notice can be displayed for people to state "as far as I know, the IP or IPs I edit from are not shared with other users". ] (]) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== new edit given a neutrality query but nothing on the talk page to say why ==

Hi I'm new here in editing.
So, I'm not too sure how all things work.
But it seems from your guidelines that any edit then given a query as to neutrality is supposed to have details of this in the talk page. This has not happened by the person who queried neutrality to my addition on the unconditional election page earlier today. Can the neutrality issue be removed or substantiated please. ] (]) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:Which article are we talking about here? ] (]) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::We appear to be talking about Jarom22's edits to ]. Jarom22, what exactly are you asking for here? ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:The easiest thing you can do is just ask Flex on his talk page (]). ] (]) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Experienced user who fails to give edit summaries ==

There is an experienced editor (who I won't name, but has been around since 2004 and has nearly 17,000 edits), almost invariably fails to leave edit summaries (other than automatic ones). Polite requests have been made about this going back for some time (two years!), but none of these requests have ever really been acted upon. Although this is only a nuisance, other editors find it rather frustrating: in general, can anything be done about this behaviour? Thanks, --] (]) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:We could ask the user to change their preferences so that they will be reminded to provide an edit summary when they try to save a page without one. That's what I do, and I have had edit summarys 100% of the time since I changed it. ] (]) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:: If the user is amenable to change, that's a good suggestion, but if they've been asked before and don't care, you can't really make them. I mean what are you going to do, block the guy? Using an edit summary is not required by policy. <font face="monospace">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::<small>(ec with both the above)</small>I've come across a couple of editors of varying length of service who are non-summary people. I've tried asking, pleading and threatening, but to no avail. These people are often very poor communicators - that would explain the lack of summaries and the lack of response (or promises to change that are not followed through). The problem is that trying to make an otherwise good editor use summaries is unenforceable. We don't have access to their preferences to turn the summary-demand thing on; there will be no support for blocking a good editor with poor communication skills just for the latter problem. I suppose we could add ] to their monobook.js, but would there be a consensus of editors that forced behavioural modification is something we should be doing? And we'd need to protect their monobook.js if they just reverted us, which could be a drama magnet. Perhaps we just need to be a tad ] and keep hitting them with {{tl|Summary}} until they get sick of it and start using them? ➔ ''']''' knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::The "bad communicator" assessment is probably right: of the 17,000 edits in question, only about 400 are to talk pages of any kind, and only about 40 in the Misplaced Pages: namespace. --] (]) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::So, if the editor in question made 16,600 edits, +400 talkpsace edits, and doesn't use edit summaries (which is annoying, but ''meh''), what's the problem? Are the edits vandalism? Are they disruptive? If an editor has stuck around long enough to make 16,600 edits, I don't imagine I'll need an edit summary to know that he/she is doing good work for the betterment of the encyclopedia. If any one particular edit is in question or possibly conroversial, it's only one extra click on the "diff" to see what the edit was exactly. This seems a good faith post on AN, but it also seems to be a solution in need of a problem. You are know 2 cents richer. ] | ] | ] 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:The short answer is ''no''. If they don't want to, they don't have to. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::Keeper, I agree with you (except about the "solution in need of a problem" bit - I see no solutions in this thread, problem-seeking or otherwise). I can't speak for RFBailey, but when you have a non-summary editor who is editing across your watchlist, no matter how well you know of them, you're bound to click (diff) ''just in case''. If it's ten edits across ten articles, all saying ] to say ]], you will look at the first one then move on. If it's ten edits that say nothing, you ''will'' check all ten. Similarly, if you every have reason to look at their contributions - say for an obvious good-faith but nevertheless dubious edit on one article + curiosity - if there are no summaries, it's hard not to examine every edit; if the "dubious" edit is marked ] to say ] because of ]] and all the others are too, then you know that the AGF you're naturally feeling is correct and don't check. In other words, not using edit summaries wastes editor time, due to editors here being, by and large, human beings. ➔ ''']''' knows how Joan of Arc felt 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I Overspoke there. There is no solution in need of a problem because, really, there is no solution. It really comes down to recognizing the dedication of a user I suppose. Anyone that has made 16,600 mainspace edits, IMHO, deserves community trust. I don't anticipate that I, or any other editor, would have the time to find 16000+ edits to be, in your words, dubious. But I completely understand the frustration. I use edit summaries always and I greatly appreciate them from others. But, what can you do? (Rhetorical question, doesn't require an answer) ] | ] | ] 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Agreed with Keeper76. You take the good with the bad with every editor. If the good is 16,000 edits and the bad is zero edit summaries, that's pretty good overall IMHO. I assume the person knows that a lack of edit summaries increases the risk of getting reverted. If s/he is aware of that and decides that's an acceptable risk, there's not much you can do. —] (]) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ask really nicely. Maybe offer to give a barnstar after the first 1,000 edit summaries.] (]) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries are nice, but not required. It's not like it's a blockable offense to not use them.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:It is a means of avoiding scrutiny. Ironically, it may also be attention-seeking behaviour, as outlined and demonstrated by ➔ REDVEЯS. Not using edit summaries is highly disruptive, at the time of the edit and as part of the page history/ ] ] 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::Or they're just a little lazy, or think their contributions can speak for themselves. Either way, assume good faith please. I wouldn't call good faith editors making thousands of quality article edits "extremely disruptive" simply because they aren't using edit summaries. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 06:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Neither would I, please don't misquote me. It should be obvious that I am describing how the behaviour might be disruptive - I'm not assuming anything! The options you present are probable and frequent causes, but not justifiable in a long term contributor. Until one knows otherwise, by checking the unexplained contributions, the editor remains unknown - multiply this by the number of watchlists they appear on. This ''could'' be self-serving and arrogant behaviour or an ignorance of the advantage to others in using summaries. It should be policy, if it is not already. ] ] 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, just to nip this silly "anyone with tons of edits is probably a good editor" thing in the bud, I don't see a need to assume this. Obviously, I can't judge without knowing who the hell everyone is talking about, but I've seen editors who'll make hundreds of edits ''a day'' that each constitute no more than adding a single word or punctuation mark (to the same article!). So yeah...don't be silly. And yeah, always assume good faith, blah blah, etc. ] (]) 08:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I must own up to being a culprit in this regard myself - I have a few more than 17,000 edits (five times that many - I need a life), but don't give that many edit summaries. In my case part of the reason is that many, if not most, of my edits are minor, and in a lot of cases, I don't see no-summary minor edits as much of a problem (and, given that it often takes longer to write the edit summary than make the edit, can be very time consumikng when you're on a "batch-job"). With non-minor edits, though, I try to make some sort of effort, though I do often forget (probably because of the minor edit thing). I know we now have an automatic edit summary added for new articles (where the edit is given by the first line of text added in). Perhaps something similar could be done for edits to exiting articles, adding an automated summary showing the first line of text changed? That might at least make things more transparent to watchlist-readers. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:What a good suggestion! I don't do many 'batch-jobs', but I sometime use a 'paste note' function in my browser with the appropriate edit summary. ] ] 08:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::I love that suggestion. Anyone know a way to get enough support that the devs would actually listen to it? ] (]) 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::As something of a background note, the Arbitration Committee looks unfavourably on editors who fail to use edit summaries (viz. ]), and I personally agree with that. Edit summaries are nothing more than ], and there is no reason for them not to be used at any time.

:::Implementing a technical measure which makes edit summary usage mandatory is something I would strongly support. Whilst it is indeed possible to get round it (e.g., by using an edit summary of "+", as I see a number of editors using), such behaviour really is something that we need to tackly user-by-user; mandatory usage of summaries may not solve this problem, but it will be a start, and I would very much like to see it brought in. ] (]) 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Newbie admin needs a bit of advice ==

In response to report at ] I blocked {{3RRV|88.64.91.102}} for 12 hours for edit warring on {{article|Futurama}}. However, the individual has a dynamic IP and returned minutes later with a new IP and a few personal attacks for good measure. So I blocked {{3RRV|84.56.0.140}} for 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks.

Predictably, the individual returned again to revert war on the article with a new IP. What is my best course of action here? I've considered:

*Blocking each IP in a game of whack-a-mole
*Semi-protection
*Full protection (since there is an underlying content dispute)

However, none of the above seem satisfactory to me. Thanks. ] (]) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:If they seem to be targeting one article, the first step could be semi protection, which I have done here. Then you can either block individual IPs or try a range block, depending on the situation. ] (]) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the fast response. ] (]) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline ==

I'd like to start a discussion on how to handle the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation non-free image deadline. I've notified various people and posted a notice at ]. Please see . Despite the unclear wording there, it has been confirmed by others that the deadline of 23 March 2007 does apply to project ''with'' an Exemption Doctrine Policy (for Misplaced Pages, the EDP is ]).

The relevant wording is: ''"As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well."'' and ''"By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted"''

What I want to get clearly laid down here is how things will change <u>after</u> this deadline. What I don't want to see is mass bot taggings and deletion of non-free images without discussion. Please note that the license resolution uses the terms "unacceptable license" and "lacking an exemption rationale". Betacommandbot (to give an example) is incapable of determining whether an image lacks an exemption rationale. It is capable of determining the quality of a possibly existing rationale (ie. whether or not it names the article the image is being used in), but that is not the same thing.

My basic question is this: '''Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2007'''? I fear that it is not possible to do this, and that chaos may ensue if people see the passing of the deadline as some free license (pun intended) to arbitrarily delete non-free images because they feel that they are "unacceptable" or "lack a rationale" (when the definition of "lack a rationale" is disputed).

Thoughts on the central question (bolded above) and how to manage this and avoid huge amounts of drama? See also the section below, but please comment in this section as well! ] (]) 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

===Does this 23 March 2008 deadline even exist?===
:''<small>these comments split off under new title. ] (]) 11:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</small>''
What you've quoted in the "by March 23, 2008" section is from point #6 of the resolution, which is expressed as applying to projects which do not have an EDP. We do. ] (]) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:I know. I pointed this out many months ago. Others have pointed it out. But it seems that the resolution was poorly worded. Point 5 only has a 2007 deadline. I suspect it should have had a 2008 deadline as well, otherwise the "discussion" bit is essentially open-ended. If you really want to get agreement that there is no deadline, and that the last year of drama has been a misunderstanding, please get some official word on this. I've written to various people with no responses. One example is at: ] (). I've left another note as I think she was away at Wikimania the time. Any suggestions as to who else to write to would be appreciated. ] (]) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::'''Notes left for WMF Board of Trustees''' - Please see , , and for the notes I've left for the people listed (Is that up-to-date? I've linked to the current version). The en-wikipedia page for Jan-Bart is not active. Looking at that list, I now get the feeling that I should actually be contacting members of the . Who are likely to be more responsive to this plea to clarify the deadline, the Board of Trustees or people like Sue Gardner, Erik Moller, Cary Bass and Mike Godwin? Who should I be asking my questions to? ] (]) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I've notified Erik Moller , as I believe he was on the Board of Trustees at the time the Resolution was passed. ] (]) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Commment'''. It seems to me that ''our'' deadline passed as of last year. We should also be enforcing very strict limits on the use of non-free images, as expressed in the Foundation policy and at ]. Images uploaded after March 23, 2007 without a valid EDP license (appropriate non-free license and rationale) should be deleted. Images uploaded before that time should be given a chance to be placed under an appropriate license and have an appropriate rationale, '''if''' they fit under the limited circumstances. I believe a lot of the "drama" has more to do with a serious resistance to heavy limitations on fair use images, than anything else. There may be some ways to minimize the problems, but the underlying issue is simply that some users are (to be kind) reluctant to adjust to the Foundation's policy. Short of changing people's minds, there's not a whole lot that can be done to ease the pain and drama in the community. ] (]) 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:I actually tend to agree. So why does Betacommand (and others) have ] at the top of his (their) user talk page(s)? ] (]) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::I believe it is because of a misunderstanding of the policy, specifically accounting the deadline for non-EDP projects to EDP projects such as en.wiki. As an additional thought on the whole matter, I think that in the interests of minimizing drama that we have been exceptionally lenient when it comes to points 8 and 10 under "Policy" at WP:NFCC and on point 3 of the Foundation licensing policy. I tend to think that is a mistake, as instead of reducing drama, it appears (to me) to have muddled the issue and weakened the community perception of the policies. ] (]) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:You say ''"Images uploaded after March 23, 2007 without a valid EDP license (appropriate non-free license and rationale) should be deleted. Images uploaded before that time should be given a chance to be placed under an appropriate license and have an appropriate rationale, if they fit under the limited circumstances."'' - so '''why''' is Betacommandbot not discriminating between the two? The older images are being given the same amount of time as the newer images. I think any images uploaded after the 2007 March deadline should get only 7 days to be fixed, period. Everything else (the older images uploaded before then) should be tagged '''now''' and given until 1 April 2008 to be fixed. And Betacommand and others should be told that after 01 April 2008 things will not change dramatically. The way I see it, the tagging and 7-day deadlines for newly uploaded images will still apply indefinitely, and this 7-day deadline will now apply to older images as well. ] (]) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::I believe the answer lies in the lack of distinction in local policy and missing/disputed rationale templates. There's a lot of misunderstanding about the Foundation policy and the local EDP. A solution might be to make variant tags for images uploaded before March 23, 2007 and to work out consensus language regarding the distinction between "old" and "new" images either at ] or in the policy itself at ]. ] (]) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I've found an old discussion I had with Durin and . If this is a misunderstanding, it extends all the way up to Board level! I don't know which Board member Durin was referring to. ] (]) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::It may be simply be that the document is very poorly worded, but as worded our deadline was last year, not the upcoming one. I agree it would be good to receive clarification from the WMF. ] (]) 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've also rediscovered a clearer way of putting this, which I will quote here:<blockquote>"The matter of this deadline of April 2008: I had a closer look at the , and it looks like the layout of the document is confusing. The deadline is the third subclause of bullet point 6, and thus ''appears'' to be only referring to projects without an EDP. Bullet point 5 contains a date for projects with an EDP, but the date only refers to the point from which the policy applies to new images. There appear to be no deadline for the discussion of old images. I'm convinced this is a layout typo, but it is rather sloppy." - Carcharoth 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)</blockquote> As I've said above, I have contacted four members of the WMF Board of Trustees. I would like to contact those that actually discussed and voted on the Resolution, but who voted on this resolution is not clear from their documentation. I hope there is some response from the Board, and I would like to ask those with accounts on meta to leave the Board members brief notes about this discussion, or those subscribing to the WMF mailing list to leave a brief note there mentioning this discussion, if possible. Thanks. ] (]) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:Couple points: the resolution wording is weird because if you read it strictly as written, projects without an EDP in place before the resolution have to get all their images in appropriate order by March 23 2008 (Clause #6), but with those with existing EDP effectively can be read to have no deadline (clause #5) which is extremely unbalanced. One could argue that en.wiki, while having a written EDP, did not have one that was enforced or possibly failing #2: ''Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.'', and thus en.wiki is subject to #6 as well. (The act of BCB going through to validate article names gets us some way to start #2). BCB did discriminate between older images and newer images in that he only recently took off the bot's restriction that only looked at articles after a given date, thus giving the older images the time outlined in the resolution (but of course, this is why BCB is getting so many complaints now).
:Regardless, I think even without a deadline, we should bite the bullet and allow BCB to continue, allowing for more time for correcting the rationales for this period only (14-21 days if we allow BCB to burn through the rest of the images before the end of Feb). Once we get that done, the amount of noise that BCB will generate thenon (in maintaining such a state) should be very minimal and we'll never have to worry about it again. If we allow BCB trickle its way through the images, we're going to get a BCB once a week until he's done. The only thing I would change about the process is to make sure the BCB message points to the image help desk, make sure that's a box, very top of the page "If you have received a notice from BCB, please review the following..." to cut down the number of the complaints that are generated. --] 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Avoiding drama with ] during March 2008 ==

Suggested action points:
*By 23:59 2nd March 2008, ] will provide a clear schedule for his planned 'disputed non-free images' tagging runs using Betacommandbot during the rest of March 2008 and he will sticks to this schedule.
*Betacommand is asked to avoid using his bot to tag thousands of images in the week before the deadline (23 March 2008), and is encouraged to <u>finish</u> his tagging at least two full weeks before the deadline (ie. by 23:59 9th March 2008). This does not apply to images uploaded after 9th March 2008, or to images tagged before this date and untagged without being fixed.
*Betacommand is encouraged to tag older images and newly-uploaded images (ones uploaded this year) separately.
*When Betacommand announces that he is finished with his tagging runs, then existing tagged images will have their deadline extended closer to the 23 March deadline to allow editors time to work on them. As before, this does not apply to newly-uploaded images.
It is possible that Betacommand is already happy to do this, but I would like to get this on the record. Please add more action points above as needed, and discuss below. ] (]) 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:Why do we need to do this, per my message above? ] (]) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::To avoid drama. Betacommand thinks there is a deadline. Others don't. This needs to be sorted out before the "deadline" arrives. ] (]) 11:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC) <small>Previous, unhelpful comment by me, replaced - sorry Stifle.</small>
:::I agree. I don't particularly care much about the specifics, but Betacommand and his (her?) bot are the spearhead of this image-tagging drive and it'd be irresponsible not to have all our ducks in a row before proceeding with the tagging. Specifics like what images get tagged, what kind of response time uploaders are afforded, etc. etc. are important issues that should be sorted out so that later there isn't any confusion or worse, accusations of bad-faith editing. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 12:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Surely it would make more sense to reprogram Betacommand into understanding the resolution correctly? ] (]) 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

===Suggestion for reprogramming===
I have transferred this from ANI where it was rolled up for starting forest fires, against the ] policy. ] (]) 12:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</br>
I am increasingly seeing how this bot works through its invasions of my watchlist and watching the results. What appears to be happening is that images with no rationale and images with an attempted rationale, but no article link, are tagged as being completely the same, i.e. deletabble in 7 days, i.e. here: . I believe this is unnacceptable, as the cases of attempted rationales would clearly pass muster in a court, which is what the policy aims to meet. In order to decrease the stress and anger this bot is causing every time it goes on a 20,000 tag run, it should be reprogrammed to only '''run a few hundred images at a time''', and to dump the resulting tagged images into an '''expert clearing house''', before placing a huge warning and endless spamming of talk pages, only some of which are appropriate, so that images can be screened into the obvious 2 categories here, non-compliance full stop and in need of time and attention, and non-compliance with the bot's specification, but fixable in 10 seconds without stress and alarm by experienced editors, and the consequent uneccessary loss of images/editors. This would also increase the accuracy of the bot process as a whole itself, as the bot can be defeated easily by putting a gibberish rationale, as long as it contains the appropriate number of links. I know time/numbers is a factor, so I suggest images in the clearing house not given any attention in 7 days are then tagged and users warned as usual, irregardless. The clearing house can be accessed by anyone, in a collaborative effort that WP is supposed to be. ] (]) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:And still we continue with the "someone else should be doing rationales for my copyright image uploads" theme that has been running throughout this drama. What is stopping the uploaders doing these rationales for themselves? We can keep providing extra time, extra work spaces, extra help etc, but this doesn't solve the major problem: add the rationales in the first place (or when the nice bot tells you about a problem to give you a week to correct it) and the problem goes away. ➔ ''']''' knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::*The issue being, no one has shown this bot achieves this task, and even worse, it actively causes losses of images that are perfectly acceptable, due to it's harrassing and poorly written (in secret) code and operation. It is true that the specific issue of how to improve the process of getting all fur's to the correct format is being lost in the noise, this is purely down to no-one taking this issue seriously and letting betacommand do whatever he sees fit. The few images I have looked into shows me this bot is a blundering idiot at best, a complete incompetent at worst. ] (]) 12:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::*And on "someone else should be doing rationales for my copyright image uploads", no, all my images are correct because I know what is required, but in trying to save some of the many that have popped up in my watchlist, I have seen what this bot is doing, and am making a suggestion as to how to stop the complaints, harassment, annoyance and general disruption it is causing. To pretend it is not is a pure head in the sand attitude. ] (]) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Redvers, you think everyone knows the million rules about fair use and free use and the thousand steps about writing a fair use rationale? --] (]) 12:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Perhaps if they don't understand how to license the images properly they should not be uploading them? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Again, that is not the whole issue with this bot, there are many many previously acceptable images being re-flagged, and the tidal wave operation of this poorly implemented bot, combined with the fact images from 2005! are being tagged and uploaders are long gone, this is causing anger amongst experienced editors, not just new uploaders. One admin had 65 tags placed on his talk page in one day. Other have just jacked it in and said 'delete them all, I give up', even though they were saveable images. Anyone minded to try and work with this bot in its supposed aim of not deleting images, is just overwhelmed. ] (]) 13:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Over in ] we are having to deal with a rash of these, as BCB runs through and tags a huge percentage of the railroad herald images. The irony is that most of these appear in infoboxes which give mechanically interpretable evidence that image appears in a fair-use situation. I suspect that the album covers and DVD cases are similarly recognizable. At any rate, failing this, it would be useful to list the tagging where it can be gathered by the appropriate project. For the railroads we started going through all the articles manually, looking for problem images in the infoboxes. That's the kind of work we pay computers to do. ] (]) 14:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:Whether or not the images are being used appropriately, they need fair use rationales, and should have been given one when they were uploaded. ] (]) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::See above about images uplaoded before the policy was changed. ] (]) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Furthermore, BetaCommandBot frequently tags images that ''do'' have perfectly valid fair use rationales for deletion. Presumably because it is lonely and wants attention. ] (]) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::You are mistaken, if you think BCBot made a mistake, Ill gladly show you where your error is. BCBot does not tag valid rationales. either provide diffs or take back your comments. ] 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: I see at least three each day. If you can't be bothered to pay attention the edits your bot is making, then maybe it shouldn't be making them. And if you think "Find your bots mistakes by yourself" is a waste of your precious time, well, now you know how many of us who would rather be writing articles feel about your bot. ] (]) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Nandesuka, Thats BS, I know for a fact BCBot does not tag images with proper rationales, either back up your claims, which you cannot do. or stop trying to make me look bad. ] 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Fine, I'll give you one, since you're not inclined to check the work your bot does. The fair use rationale on was perfectly valid when Betacommandbot tagged it. Rest assured that I see a few of these every day. And rest assured I'm not "trying to make you look bad." Who needs to do that? ] (]) 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Guess what that image had an improper rationale. Rationales need to include the name of the article for which the rationale is for. that rationale did not have that. ] 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I've never seen anyone miss the point so much as you. There is one article link on that image, as it is, that is a fully legal fully defendable rationale; however, if I removed the entire Fair Use Rationale section, and replaced it with ''Phantasie is the best game ever'', making a demonstrably invalid rationale, your bot would not tag it in a million years, no matter how many 10,000 run days you do. I would estimate on the ones I see (as despite repeat requests, no analysis of this bot's effectiveness is forthcoming) that at least 30% of your tags are of this nature, a complete drain on the community and an annoyance to editors. ] (]) 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::MickMacNee, correct the bot will not tag that image, but there will be a day that all images have been reviewed and the things that BCbot missed will get fixed. so stop complaining that the bot cannot ensure that every rationale is 100% correct. there are parts that cannot be examined by a bot. for that we have humans. but for what can be automated it is. so stop complaining and start helping. ] 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::87.2% of statistics being made up on the spot, I would estimate on the ones I see that 99.99999% of the bot's taggings are correct, including the one cited above. It's not hard to get an FUR right. Well, apparently it ''is'' hard for some people, who are also the ones who please delete as applicable. Write correct FURs when you upload or when the nice bot tells you about a problem. Problem solved. Instantly, and with no drama. Ah, I see the flaw... ➔ ''']''' knows how Joan of Arc felt 23:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ther is so much wrong with this statement I don't even want to address, suffice to say you clearly don't ''get it''. The only category I fall into there is possibly bitching, (which is nice and fluffily offensive), as explained to you by me ad nauseum, and if you think people would go to this much length to try and highlight what they see as an obvious shortcoming just for the sake of bitching, that's just sad, and speaks volumes for me about your attitude. Wind your neck in. You honestly think we're all idiots for not just ignoring the issues caused by this in my view (and not disproven at all in any sense of critical analysis, all we have to go on are the thousands of anecdotal examples, complaints and ye gods, drama!) inneffective piece of amateur-hour logic teamed up with an over-zealous operator, because you either a. don't care if acceptable images are deleted (''non-comliance is non-compliance'' as some idiot on BCBtalk put it, how's that for a contrast to correct interpretation of IAR), or b. take no interest in images on WP at all. ] (]) 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Redvers, this is ''not'' about recent uploaders who have not bothered to add a rationale. This is about people who have ''tried'' to add a rationale (or did so a long time ago when things were more lax around here), got it wrong, and then have been deluged with noticed to fix their images. There ''is'' a problem here. This whole situation ''could'' have been managed better. I can guarantee 100% that if Betacommandbot stopped tagging today and the pre-23 March 2007 images were carefully sorted through by hand and fixed where needed and deleted where not needed, there would be zero drama. The drama comes from applying a blunt tool (Betacommandbot) to fix a problem with a single algorithm ("is the article named on the image page?"), instead of a more intelligent algorithm ("when was it uploaded?"; "has a rationale template been used?" "is there other evidence that someone tried to write a rationale and got it wrong?" and so on). You are usually good at understanding what people are saying, Redvers, so why are you seemingly wilfully misunderstanding things here? ] (]) 00:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
MickMacNee is exactly right. Both Betacommand and Redvers have managed to ignore what has been said in this section, and worse, to misrepresent it. MickMacNee was talking about non-free images that clearly have something that any human can recognise as a rationale (sometimes even a section called "rationale"), but where the editor who wrote the rationale didn't name the article the image was used in. Sometimes such editors go to great lengths to carefully explain why they think the image should be used, and are clearly ''trying to do the right thing''. It doesn't help that they then get a bot-generated message saying the rationale is wrong. Redvers responded by talking about people who upload images and don't bother adding a rationale. ''That is a completely different situation'', and Redvers does those people who have tried to add rationales and "got it wrong" a great injustice by lumping them in with those who don't bother adding rationales at all. Furthermore, Betacommand's definition of a "valid rationale" is extremely narrow: the definition goes something like "if the article is named, it may be valid - if it isn't it isn't valid". Let's try, once again to lay this all out as clearly as possible. Consider three factors: date of upload (2005 compared to 2007), state of rationale (none; with article name but invalid; without article name but otherwise valid; completely valid), and who or what is doing the assessment (human or bot). That yields 8 different possibilities, but with varying results depending on whether BetacommandBot is doing the evaluation or whether a human is. Sure, the deleting admin should pick up the slack, but that doesn't always happen. And the bot, while being less discriminating than a human, still fails to pick up lots of invalid rationales, but no-one seems to care about these points. I've asked Betacommand several times to separate out those images with rationales (eg. by searching for a template being used, or for certain keywords) from those without no rationale at all. I think the response at the time was "it will take a few months to reprogram the bot", and my response, half-jokingly, was that that would be enough time to have this "deadline" arrive first. I'm no longer laughing. Why did Betacommand not reprogram his bot to separate out those images using a rationale template from those with no rationale? It would be nice to get an answer to that. ] (]) 00:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:It appears that members of the WMF Board of Trustees that passed this resolution have a difficult time creating a valid Fair Use Rationale that will pass the Betacommand BOT. Erik Moller uploaded ] in December 2003. -- ] (]) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can we get some help at ]? There is a ] going back a full month. Any help would be appreciated. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:I've taken a crack at the backlog, but I need to head off for the day. If someone else could jump in, it would be appreciated. ] (]) 12:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Page move / delete cleanup ==

<span class="plainlinks"></span> is a list of all pages in the User: namespace that don't have a corresponding user in Special:Listusers. Some of the pages are deletable under ], however, it seems that most are users who mistakenly created a page in the wrong place. ] vs. ], ] vs. ]. Seems other pages are from when the Rename extension wasn't able to move subpages. Some of the other pages are apparently attempts at users "renaming" themselves. Still some other pages are tagged with "sock" tags, however, it's pretty difficult to have a sock puppet account if you've never created an account with that name. The last category of pages seems to be people who "created" doppelganger accounts (however, without registering the account, creating just a user page is pretty useless).

Quite a large mess. Any help cleaning up the list (specifically appropriate page moves and deleting the newly-created redirects) would be great. Cheers. --] (]) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:I feel like this would take forever. --] (]) 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::Goodness me :) ] (]) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I thought the same thing. I went to the link, and I was too overwhelmed to even start doing anything (for now). Who has motivation? We need you! ''']]''' 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh dear, I had to click on the links at random and fix them one by one, and there're nearly 4000 of 'em. Are there any tools that can help? :-S --] (]) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{resolved|1=] may be able to help, but probably not. --] (]) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)}}
Maybe something to take a look at... assuming this page keeps growing, shouldn't it start timing out when users try to save to it? <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">]</font> 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:It's actually not that large; ANI is twice as big in terms of bytes. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::''Assuming it keeps growing''. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">]</font> 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:If it becomes an issue, make subpages of it and transclude them. ] (]) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Meh, I doubt that would worked, because the program downloads the list, and I doubt it would download something transluded. What's the point of marking this thread as resolved? It's more of a note than a problem <tt>:s</tt> . <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">]</font> 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Marking it as resolved because this isn't a board for technical issues with a program. If it becomes a problem, beg Gurch to solve it. : - ) --] (]) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Username policy on famous person ==
{{resolved}} Policy discussion taking place in WP:U user talk page now. No need for admin involvement here.] (]) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
{{User|Leonardo DiCaprio}} I left a note on her user talk page advising her to change her name. To sound less bite-y (WP:BITE), I asked her to save it for the famous (not real) Leonardo. Is a polite message and block the right thing to do? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC) I have studied WP:U which states "You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name." So this person makes it clear that she is a fan and not the famous Leonardo. Do we let her keep her username??? Somehow, I don't like it but I don't want to be nasty to her either.

Advice? Opinions on the policy? ] (]) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:''You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name.'' That pretty much sums it up. If she's a fan, block the name. ''']''']''']''' 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::I read that too but it also says "You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, '''or you make it clear that you are not.''' Lara, if you don't like the policy, should it be changed instead of violated? I would be in favor of changing the policy. ] (]) 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:::You may leave the user in question a message citing the username policy and politely suggest a rename. There is high chance that a new user is unaware of our rules here. ] makes it clear that only when a username is blatantly inapprpriate must it be blocked; this username doesn't meet that criterion. --] (]) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:::The policy doesn't need to be changed. "You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person ''unless it is your real name'', '''and''' you either are that person, '''or''' you make it clear that you are not." It's only possible to use a famous person's name if it is also your real name and you make it clear you are not that famous person. ''']''']''']''' 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

::::The WP:U policy is not clearly written. I have proposed a better wording here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Proposed_policy_improvement
<br /><blockquote>
You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you'''r real name is the same as the well-known person but that you are a different person''' <s>are not</s>. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
</blockquote> </blockquote>
}}
(bolded print is added text to the policy) ] (]) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)



== Politically motivated deletion and threatening by ] at ] page ==

One of ]'s most cited controversy was the ] case. As you see, ''it has its own wikipedia page''(!) (question, how long, now, that I linked it...) and if that would not be enough, the case is also on the German, French and Esperanto wiki (just look at its iw-s)

At this time (20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)) it ''isn't mentioned'' in a SINGLE word in the TL article and it is continuosly being deleted from there (see TL page ), and those IPs, who include it, threatened to be blocked, by obviously politically motivated ''user with rollback rights''(!), ] (what an ironic name). Veritas also misused the ] policy, when he/she cutted for the 3rd time out the section wich is mostly (almost exclusively) based on NY TIMES, THE GUARDIAN, HAARETZ and THE OBSERVER articles.

I want ''veritas'', by seeing the section back in the article, and blocking ] for revertwarring, vandalizing at TL page, and for misusing WP policies to delete the mentioned above case, and for threatening his/her opponents (with 3RR block), to keep his/her verion of the page. Thank you. --] (]) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:With Rep. Lantos passing away recently, there would be a lot of people going his article. And there will be a lot of people will adding not only vandalism but stuff the press will mention in his obituary. I suggest more admins go to the article and see what is going on. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:: A quick glance shows a ] and ] having some brief details (plus a link to the other article). The anonymous users seem intent on copying the entire detailed article from the other page on Lantos' page without discussion on the talk page. I would suggest that they add to the section with details if they want, but don't be surprised if you just dump another article onto it and people take it out. -- ] (]) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

* I have investigated the original complaint, and found that it is without merit. The ] case is adequately covered in the article. Two apparently related IP users, {{user2|87.97.53.181}} and {{user2|87.97.106.78}}, most likely one user, have been edit warring to insert the full text of that article into ], in violation of ]. I have blocked both of them for a short duration, and will remove the article protection, as we do not protect articles against one editor. It appears that the user who started this thread comes from the very same ISP, and may also be the same user; however, I will not block them at this time. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry I'm so late reponding to this (Just noticed it) but, for the record, my objection to this IP's edits were based on the fact that they seemed to be violating NPOV as the incident is already discussed in the article. At the very least, he was clearly attributing undue weight to it per ] and without adequate discussion on the talk page. Note that ] also applies to recently deceased persons. Also, the 3RR warning was appropriately placed. With another reversion I would have taken the issue to Checkuser. --] (]) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what it was but now the Tom Lantos article does have mention of the nurse. It seems to be NPOV and does not call Tom Lantos an idiot or a crook so there's no BLP violations that I can see. Resolved? ] (]) 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

== {{user|Kahooper}} and links to his website ==

{{user|Kahooper}} has linked to his website, FantasyLiterature.net, repeatedly, despite the link being removed by multiple editors. Kahooper's opinion is that it should be included because of the review content on the page, done by individuals identified only by initial, with no evidence that they are notable or professional reviewers. I have mentioned this to him on his talk page, and placed a {{tl|uw-coi}} on his page, but I thought a broader input from administrators might be more convincing - that several individuals have moved the link does not seem to be indicative of a problem to him. If I'm being overzealous, please let me know, but I think my interpretation of WP:EL is quite mainstream. ] (]) 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:Kahooper is a woman, actually. I am one of those who have been deleting these links, which have been inserted in multiple articles by both ] and ], whose IP resolves to the University of North Florida, where Kahooper is an adjunct faculty member. Kahooper has admitted that she is the owner of the Web site in question, and I view this as a clear case of linkspam and have treated the links accordingly. ] (]) 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::Which was my reading too. To date, apparently neither myself nor Deor have been sufficiently convincing. ] (]) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

== Question ==

Does actually conform with policy? User:] 01:28,&nbsp;],&nbsp;200]


For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Meaning what? Clearly a better place would be ] under criterion F. cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
:::Meaning private information not voluntarily disclosed. User:] 01:44,&nbsp;],&nbsp;200]

Latest revision as of 02:33, 11 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 3 2 5
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 7 14
    RfD 0 0 34 17 51
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Topic ban appeal

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

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

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

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

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

    Andra Febrian report

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

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

    Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

    Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

    Cannot draftify page

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

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

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

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

    Remove PCR flag

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

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

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

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

    "The Testifier" report

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

    Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

    repost from archive:

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

    Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

    References

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

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

    Heritage Foundation

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

    Deleted contributions request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

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

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

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

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

    Hide this racist edit.

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

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

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

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

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

    Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

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

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

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

    96.230.143.43

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

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

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

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

    StoneX Group Inc.

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

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

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

    Permissions Removal

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

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

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

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

    ftools is back!

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

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


    Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Import request

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

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

    Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24

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

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

    Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

    Coordinating arbitrators

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

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

    The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

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

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

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

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