Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 22:39, 8 August 2008 view sourceEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →Nedra Pickler: Consider commenting on the article's Talk page← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:56, 10 January 2025 view source Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,317 edits →Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel: comment
(999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
	<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|algo = old(7d)
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|counter = 368
	|maxarchivesize = 250K
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	|counter = 159
			|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}}
	<!--
	----------------------------------------------------------		----------------------------------------------------------
	New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.		New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
	----------------------------------------------------------		----------------------------------------------------------
	-->		--><noinclude>
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
	{{notice|'''If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message ] instead.'''}}
			==Open tasks==
	== Talkpage deletion question ==
			<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 ==
	Note: This is not an attempt to create drama. I would like to clarify something though. If a talk page for an article exists but only has a <nowiki>{{talkheader}}</nowiki> template with no other content, should it be deleted? I'm asking based on this and other related talkpage deletions. It just seems unnecessary to me. ] (]) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't see what the big problem is with leaving it undeleted. It gives instructions for whomever wants to post there. Unless the article is deleted (thereby making the talk page eligible for CSD - G8), I don't see the point in deleting a helpful template. Seems overcooked when there are so many other more relevant and serious "problems" on wiki. Am I missing something? I realize that talkpage was deleted, I'm failing to realize ''why''. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed. You could always find a ] to put it in. ] ] 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Or you could stuff beans up your nose. I would rather see a red link than slapping myself every time I open a talk page which contains no actual talk. — ] 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Whoever created a talk page containing only &#123;&#123;talkheader&#125;&#125; ought to be trout-slapped for violating both common sense and the instructions which say ''']'''! — ] 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, perhaps. But instead of instantly A3'ing, it would be more helpful to add the relevant WikiProjects. They don't take a few minutes to find. And if the talkheader itself is misplaced, remove it. ] ] 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I still don't get what is so bad about having a talk page that just contains a talkheader, regardless of what the instructions say (which I hadn't seen until now). I can't see what's so vexing about talkpages that don't contain talk yet. Seems like a kind of policy wonkery, IMO. And I think its a lot nicer than redlinks, personally. ] (]) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Some people get agitated when they see redlinks because it feels like something is missing. Some people get agitated when they see an empty talk page because it's taking up space. It's not process wonkery, but more like human nature. It's something we can't really deal with. —''']''' 22:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Practical matters are by definition anti-wonkery. If a talk page is completely blank I'd like to know before clicking on it. — ] 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::But it's not completely blank, there's a talkheader there. What if there were a couple Wikiproject tags there as well? Those aren't discussion, but I don't think someone would delete the talk page if it contained nothing but Wikiproject templates. ] (]) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::]. Some talk pages contain several banners instead of one, and may be less likely to be deleted, but that does not make them more useful. — ] 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Talk pages aren't just for discussion. WikiProject templates categorise articles for individual projects. They serve multiple purposes. ] ] 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You are entitled to your opinion, but I would like to know whether it pertains to the {{tl|talkheader}} template. — ] 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::No. My argument was that a talkheader could be replaced with WP templates, instead of a simple page deletion. ] ] 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::This just creates more work. I pity the fool who spends an afternoon looking for the most applicable wiki-project tag to use in order to save an empty talk page with no salvageable value. — ] 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	(←) Well it's not that difficult. If it's a bio, tag with {{tl|WPBiography}}. Most of the time it's blatantly obvious which tags to put on the article. For 90% of articles, it's no chore, but sure, there will be the odd exception. But my argument was in relation to strolling across talk pages. Instead of G6'ing, tag it; all biographies, for example, should use WPBiography even if there's no discussion on the page. This is especially important for BLPs. ] ] 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	:::(e/c) I'd like to know too; the documentation says "see the talk page" for why adding this everywhere is wrong, and the talk page says "see the documentation". I could guess (Saving someone from wasting time clicking on a blue link, thinking there was discussion when there wasn't? Dragging down the server with lots of needless transclusion?), but would prefer someone who knows actually explain ''why'' it's not recommended, instead of just saying it. Quite possibly there's a good reason, but I'd like to hear it. --] (]) 22:36, 1 August 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.
	:::: (e/c*2)Surely it is ok to have a talk page with just a banner - it provides guidance for new users on what's appropriate, how to sign etc. Seems a bit anal to be deleting pages like this, plus does it really come under ]? - <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">''']'''<sup>''']'''</sup></span> 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::: That's what I think too. It seems helpful and informative for newbies at least. I've added them to a number of talk pages just because I thought they contain helpful instructions. ] (]) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	If talkheader belonged on every talk page, it would be added to the interface. I remove it whenever I'm otherwise editing the talk page unless there's actual questionable discussion that it seems to be a response to. --] 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Yes I believe the template was intended for talk pages which tend to receive comments from new users who don't understand the purpose of talk pages, generally articles about current events or very famous people or other web sites. However if we could find an appropriate interface page to contain this material (and then delete the bloody template) it would be more than acceptable as a compromise. — ] 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:] appears when editing a talk page. Is that good enough? — ] 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
			Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
	<--I just re-"bluelinked" this particular talkpage (which I'm well aware is one of ''thousands'' of redlinks, perhaps rightfully so). I readded the talkpageheader template, and two wikiprojects that seem appropriate. Please see ]. Now that I've read this particular article, I find it to be rather AFD-able, but still, there is no valid reason (policy is descriptive, not prescriptive) to leave it a redlink if there are valid and active WikiProjects that may find interest in any particular article. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I wonder if you can help me -- How many angels can dance in a talk page with no header? ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	===Merged from ANI===
	An admin has been deleting article talk pages. I can't see the sense in it? Don't we have enough server space at Misplaced Pages or something? I'm a little concerned because one page I had on watch had it's talk page deleted. So I didn't worry that much but added a cat to the page and then went to an associated page and added a cat also. Shortly after that article had its talk page deleted also. Gave me a bad feeling. So here I am. Articles are ] and ]. Also on my watch list with a deleted talk page ]. The admin doing the deleting is ]. So I'll see people here have to say about this? Oh, and I'm not sure because I cant access the deleted pages, but I was thinking one of the deleted talk pages was in a wikiproject? If not it should have been.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 02:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:According to the Talk page of the deleting admin, he's deleting Talk pages that have ] as their only content, since the instructions for that template indicate it should only be used on Talk pages that have other content anyway. It seems kind of an odd choice of endeavor to me, but I can't argue with his logic. ] (]) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Deleting empty talk pages is disruptive. It's confusing and wastes the time of editors who have the article watchlisted as they try to chase down what happened and why. Just a glance at the contents of the deleting admin's talk page shows what a timewaster this practice is for all involved, including the deleter. It's a net loss to the project. Please end this practice. --] (]) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I echo Cliff's concerns. Could the deleting admins at least state explicitly in the edit summary (or deletion log, whatever) the precise rationale for the deletion? <font color="404040">]</font> 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree, deleting the page is fine, but a clear explanation of why the page has been deleted would save a lot of time and also be much more considerate on the part of the deleting admin. ] (]) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	Deleting empty talk pages is useful, as it gives pages with no WikiProject templates and no discussion a redlinked talk page. WE use {{tl|Talkheader}} only where necessary (else we'd just use a MediaWiki message for this anyway). ] (]) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	*When someone creates an article about a living person, especially one who has been in the news recently for some scandal or as an alleged criminal, it is important to add the usual BLP warnings to the article's talk page AND LEAVE THEM THERE even is there is no other comment on it. This way, when a newbie goes to the talk page to rail about how evil the article subject is, they will see the BLP header telling them about our policy that the talk page is not a blog for general discussion of the subject, and that information about living persons must be well sourced. It is a clear detriment to the project to leave an article about a living person and to remove the talk page which has the BLP warning. It prevents or reduces the incidence of likely and predictable BLP violations. ] (]) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	*:] doesn't contain a BLP warning. ] (]) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	*::My main concern is that, as I said, new biographical articles with no other comments on the talk page should have a BLP template like ] and the talk page with that template should not be deleted. As for the standard template, I see no benefit in deleting it from otherwisde blank talk pages. Why encourage newbies to barge in and treat the page like a typical blog? Why not post our basic rules at the top of the talk page? Has anyone gotten a blister on his mouse clicking finger from looking at a bluelinked talk page and finding only the Talkheader template, instead of all the well founded suggestions for improving the article that he was expecting to find? ] (]) 16:28, 8 August 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 ].}}
	===Redlinked talk is a barrier to new users===
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	Has anyone considered the fact that new users might be intimidated by redlinked Talk pages? It leads them to a page telling them they're creating a new page, with no instructions whatsoever for how the Talk page should be used or formatted. At least with a talkheader template, we've got a page the user can see and which has links to instructions on what to do. It's much more encouraging to see a page welcoming comments than a blank edit window telling you to dive right into the deep end. &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:As has been said multiple times above, if {{tl|talkheader}} is supposed to go on every talk page, it can be worked into the interface somewhere. Otherwise, if you're going to add it, at least add a WikiProject tag so he page will be useful. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 15:08, 3 August 2008 (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)
	::Has anyone actually submitted a feature request to the developers? And I dispute that the page isn't "useful" if it only has the header. &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::How does one do this anyway? I think that talkpages should all come with a default header, as it gives '''everyone''' a concise summary of what they are for. I have in the (fairly recent) past created some of these otherwise blank talk pages, and I took them directly from the source of other (probably more populated) talk pages, because I saw it and thought it was a really neat summary and useful to your average Joe Bloggs who might be editing for the first time. At that point I was not aware that template guidance notes even existed.<br />I was then very '''concerned''' to see several talkpages from articles I'd either started or edited flagged up as deleted on my watchlist, with just a strange code as an explanation. I've wasted about an hour trying to find out why that is the case and whether it will remain so. Quite frankly I think the argument saying ''a lone talkheader is as useless, if not more so than a redlink'' is flawed. Maybe it was ''once'' the case, when WP was being edited by fewer people who all knew what they were doing (at least to a degree), but I personally think this needs strong consideration. At the very least, could you avoid deleting without a more self-explanatory message, because while creating (or deleting) a virtually-blank talk page takes no time, finding out why that page has then been deleted takes rather a lot of time. Hypothetically, if one's well-intentioned but not-quite-policy contributions are deleted without a good reason stated, one might be less inclined to contribute in the first place. That's my tuppence-worth. Finally, apologies if only admins are meant to post here.<br />--] (]) 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Anyone's allowed to post here; it's a mix between discussion of matters that pertain to admins and a complaints department (despite the text at the top). ] is the relevant text that appears above talk pages, and does in fact link to ]. --] 02:11, 4 August 2008 (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)
	(unindent) The "arguments" being presented here are rather silly. As I (and others) have said, if there is information that is so vital as to require it to be on the top of every talk page, go ] and file a bug. Redlinks indicate that a page is content-less. If a talk page has no content, turning the red link blue to make all of the tabs at the top the same color is silly and unproductive. --] (]) 02:38, 4 August 2008 (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)
	:Not as silly as going to the trouble of writing and running a script to turn the bluelink red again <tt>:D</tt>. As has been said above, the most sensible way to handle these (if not the quick-and-easy solution) is to add useful content to the page, such as WikiProject banners. A list of these barren talkpages ''would'' be useful, but mindlessly deleting them just so they can be recreated again at some later date (don't forget the bitey "you are creating a page that has been deleted" warning that will now appear) is crazy. Deleting pages really ''doesn't'' make the wiki any tidier - it just messes up logs, histories and pages, bloats the database, and almost invariably requires more effort to undo when the time is right. Adding WikiProject banners to ten pages would be many times more beneficial to the project than deleting a thousand of these pages. That said, I do ''not'' condone the creation of these pages with just {{tlx|talkheader}} and that practice too should certainly be discontinued. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::To agree here with H-m, (I think), it is equally useless to create a page with {{tl|talkheader}} as it is to ''delete'' a page with {{tl|talkheader}}. Especially for the BLP articles (there've been a few). It would be much easier to type <nowiki>{{blp}}</nowiki> then to delete (at least, without a script). Every blp article should be tagged with the blp header, if not a wikiproject with it. MZM, I like what you are doing with stale (indef) usertalk, and the housekeeping is invaluable, in general. Please see the reasoning being given here though that "what's done is done". Discourage the creation of usertalk "for the sake of a bluelink", yes. But, H-m makes a valid point about "you are creating a page that has been deleted" and the ominousness of that post to someone (non-admin) who would have ''no idea'' what was deleted, or why it was deleted, or whether they'd get "in trouble" for "recreating it". ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
	(unindent again) Once again, ] has embarked upon a massive spree of deletions that, while arguably within policy, are not absolutely vital, and now we have the fallout to deal with at WP:AN. This has happened before (], for instance). Is it going to happen again? I hope not. --] (]) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:God forbid empty pages be deleted! Anything but that! But really, I always like to use these fun sessions at AN to point out more housekeeping that needs doing. Y'know, instead of mindless bantering here? {{plainlinks|1=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=229637959 This}} is a list of about 800 indefinitely blocked user / user talk pages that need to be reviewed and either removed from ] or deleted. If you don't want to do those, let me know, I have plenty of other things that need doing. Things that are far more beneficial to the project than chatting here. It's obvious quite a few people have more time than they can fill. Anything I can do to help.
	*(added: Never mind. Looks like a standard practice I had not noticed. We might make some reference to this on the page admins use for blocking, and in admin training pages.)<s>MZMcBride is also deleting the user talk pages of banned users, which may contain extensive discussions of their problematic edits, which can be useful to nonadmins tracking down sockpuppets. It does not save any server space whatsoever, since the deleted edits are still there. Is there a policy which justifies or which requires these deletions? One example is at . It seems like deletion for deletion's sake. If MZMcBride continues to delete all talk pages of banned users, it will be impossible for non-admins to judge the quality of vandalfighting when someone who goes to the trouble of placing appropriate warnings comes up for RFA. What exactly is the point? (Other than to have the joy of deleting a dozen things a minutes and upping the edit count.) It jyust makes it more difficult for other admins, and impossible for non-admins, to do research. ] (]) 05:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC).</s>Withdrew complaint. ] (]) 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Oh, no? It's done quite regularly, by a large number of admins. It's also noteworthy that deletions have nothing to do with edit count. ]] 07:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I suggest you read ], having hundreds of thousands of talk pages just so voters can see that you are competent enough to place a template is slightly pointless. You will also notice that pages of sockpuppets are not deleted through this process. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
	===New "Notices" tab?===
			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.
	Personally, I think it would be useful if Misplaced Pages talk pages could once again be used for, well, '''talk'''. Maybe a new tab could be added for templates/notices pertaining to an article. Such elements do not actually constitute "talk" and are too often used as a substitute for meaningful discussion contribution. A large amount of them are either irrelevant, condescending, unnecessary, mundane or otherwise not too useful. I think putting them onto a seperate section would greatly restore the usefulness of talk pages, and any problems with templates can at least be pushed off to a separate section, allowing consideration of talk page problems to be free of having to consider templates into the bargain. ] <span style="color:green; font-size:larger"> &#09827;</span> ] 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:As far as I'm concerned, the ''point'' of placing them on the talk page is to increase that someone getting involved with the article will be aware of them. If you put them out of the way even fewer people will take them into account. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:49, 7 August 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.
	== BenBurch comments on the recent suit against him for editing Misplaced Pages ==
			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.
	This just showed up in my watch list; ] I suggest ppl read it. (If this isn't the right notice board for this, feel free to move it!) --] (]) 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I think it needs deletion and oversight. It's pretty strong stuff. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
			Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
	::Deleted. Reading through again to check whether it fully warrants oversight. ] ] 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Under what condition for oversight does it (perhaps) meet?--]</font><sup> (] • ])</sup> 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::I don't believe it does; the other party instigated the matter (if BenBurch is to be believed - per AGF), meaning there will be public records, and BB did not give the RL name of the party. The offending edits are deleted, BB has retired, and I think we can all move on. ] (]) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::What condition did it even meet for ''deletion'' ??? Yes, it's strong, and includes information about a real-life legal case, but it doesn't evidently violate any of our policy that I could see. What gives? If you can articulate a policy problem with it, fine, but ... ] (]) 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It doesn't warrant oversight. However, the deletion was appropriate. We don't need strong ] in the page history. If another admin disagrees, as always, I'm fine for it to be overturned, but I think we should just move on. ] ] 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I don't know if deletion was necessary, but ] probably called at least for reverting or blanking it. -] (]) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I didn't see any BLP related issues in the final deleted edit - a possibly sensitive name was removed by BenBurch himself before anyone asked him to, but that's it. Specifics please, on what is a BLP problem?
	:::::::] is all about "Don't threaten editors with lawsuits", which is not what happened here at all. BenBurch '''was''' sued (or more precisely, a restraining order filed for...), for Misplaced Pages activities. He reported on what happened, without including (as far as I see) any threats against anyone or any information which is private info about any participants. That someone in the community was sued is open knowledge - his report on what happened seems entirely appropriate here. How does deleting that info fall under any of our policies or help the community or project or encyclopedia? I don't see there being any point to deleting it, and though it's not "an abuse" of process or someone it seems to clearly have been a mistake that should be un-done... ] (]) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::It's uncited contentious POV material about a living person. That's what BLP is all about, right? -] (]) 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::The online court records appear to support this as far as they go. I am betting that if we get the actual records (Original research I understand) that they will say the same as he said here. This did not sound contrived. --] (]) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	* Wow, I posted that here because I thought people needed to READ it not DELETE it. It ought to be restored and protected. Geeze, guys. --] (]) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	*::I think Ben deserves our congratulations. ] (]) 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
			<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
	:Well, I've restored and reverted back to the last revision by Sarah. I'm not sure if the deletion was a mistake, but my actions are unsupported, so I'm happy to bow to the community. ] ] 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Wait, I still don't see the statement. ] (]) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (edit) Sorry, I see it, I am an idiot. ] (]) 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
			:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
			::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::It's in the history, the last three edits before my reversion. Per ], his edits should not be un-reverted. ] ] 23:55, 1 August 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 should be unreverted, too. It says a lot that others need to read, I think. But then IANAA. --] (]) 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)		I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
	:::Definitely not. ] ] 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	I have reverted to the user's original statement. It needs to be said. Enough with the fucking ] whining, Violet was a liar and any cursory search of google shows this to be the case. I recommend any and all assist in deterring Peter's vandalism. --] (]) 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I'm not going to war with you; I undid your edit before you came here. My edits, however, are not vandalism. ] ] 00:22, 2 August 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)
	::Uh, Peter, it isn't unsourced information, Ben Burch is a ''primary'' source. We need to stop censoring stuff that isn't a violation of our policies. ] (]) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (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)
	::What Ben did was finally stand up to the pathetic whiners who bitch to OTRS, threaten to sue, and anything else just because ''they'' don't like the truth. Well the truth hurts, and this incident has galvanized my believe that we must be '''as apathetic as possible''' towards the subjects of our articles. ] must and always will trump ]. What Ben has done is win one for the good guys. --] (]) 00:26, 2 August 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)
	:::Dragon695, can you avoid describing the incident in terms this lurid? That does not help in any way. ] (]) 01:07, 2 August 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)
			== Incivility at ] ==
	:::]. Are you saying his edits are NPOV? They aren't. ] ] 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Indeed, for all external subjects, it isn't. However, when an editor, in good standing, is sued frivolously and has his name dragged through the mud on wiki, I think we owe him the courtesy of posting his vindication. It is the least we could do, considering I do not think WMF covered his attorney fees. It was Ben who stood up for ] in the face of an unsavory, litigious character who wanted to POV push on her own article. --] (]) 00:32, 2 August 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)
	:::Calm down. I realize that this incident involves Misplaced Pages, so of course, we're all interested and have opinions about it, but in any other case, we wouldn't allow anybody who had a personal encounter with another person to post a long screed about how terrible that person was on their userpage. There are forums for this sort of thing (Misplaced Pages Review or wherever), but this just isn't one of them. -] (]) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::It is not a screed, it is a statement that tells other editors to be bold and not be afraid of those who cry ]. Just because someone doesn't like the truth doesn't mean it should be removed. I will continue to revert any attempts to remove the very necessary statement on his userpage. I'm sick and fucking tired of people whining about ], it is time someone stood for ] and ]. --] (]) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::And which of those supports not elsewhere reported allegations of perjury against identifiable people? ] (]) 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Who cares? Violet filed a frivolous suit, it was dismissed with prejudice. At the very least, that makes her a liar. In order to bring the case, she had to lie to the court. Lying in court testimony is perjury. However, since you are ] fanatic, I'll excuse your oversight of these facts. --] (]) 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::I believe both suits were actually dismissed ''without'' prejudice, weren't they? For the record. :) -- ] | ] 01:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::It certainly does not mean that. Having a complaint dismissed means that you lost, not that you lied. And it definitely doesn't mean that the loser committed perjury. You really need to moderate your tone. -] (]) 01:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::True. Dragon, please stop the showboating. Just because Blue is clearly (and objectively) a dipshit doesn't mean we go ].] (]) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (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)
	:::::::::I am not showboating. Yes, perhaps my language was strong, but I feel that we are under attack by those who wish to spin their biographies and those who would warp policy to fit this agenda. It is important that an editor's experience be given light to show that standing for ] against ] is possible and that one need not cave because a subject is unhappy about it. I feel strongly that his userpage should be left in tact without being scrubbed by well-intentioned persons who have their hearts in the right places but who are taking things a little too far with ]. I ] about Violet Blue or her feelings at this point, she had to lie in order to bring the claim as Ben pointed out. His statements are backed up by the facts and the correlation only involves minor ]. Given that it is a userpage and that many users who have retired in the past have left lengthy rationales for their departure, I see no reason that any part should be removed. He has been careful not to reveal any information that would personally cause harm, I think that is more than enough. --] (]) 09:52, 2 August 2008 (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)
	::::::::::What does it take to move this out of the realm of original research completely? I see only one matter at issue here; Her name(s) and age. And I did spend some time (not much was required) with google, and some of the people-search engines out there and even without paying money it would appear that the allegation is likely to be actually true, there being several aliases for this person with a matching age. But at what time does using search products available to the public, and which come from public records themselves, constitute original research, and when is it just plain old research? I see that we are allowed in some ways to use primary sources, but I am confused by the limitations of that use. And at some point isn't it perverse to maintain that we cannot use obviously-true information at all? Will some of you setters-of-policy expound a bit upon this? --] (]) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
			:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
			:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
			:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	*SIGH - I hadn't intended to come back HERE at all, but an admin wrote me asking that I do so.
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Here are source documents for this case. We do not have the ruling or the minutes of the hearing yet;
			*'''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 ==
			{{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)
	Here is the court log of action in the case;
			{{abot}}
			== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
			{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
	Now, if you will excuse me, I'm DONE here. --] (]) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:
			=== Evidence ===
	:I am sadden to see you go. In my mind, you did the right thing. Please know that there are users and editors who appreciate what you have done. Thank you for standing up for our rights! --] (]) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			1. – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.
			2.
	] (]) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.
			3.
	* Um, this is lame. Ben was sued by a litigious and distinctly odd individual (who ha salso had spats with Boing Boing and other places). I don't think there's much to be gained from writing up the case report on his user page, but I certainly can't see that he's done anything wrong or actionable here. I don't think we sanction people for being attacked and exonerated n the real world, do we? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.
			4.
	Perhaps I over-reacted on seeing phrases like ''Her claimed fear of violence was, at best, delusional and, at worst, a lie''. Even if not deleted, I think that the page (and some comments in this thread) might need to be edited for tone. Winning a lawsuit (or getting a case dismissed) doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want about someone. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></s>
			- After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.
			5.
	The first section seems distinctly odd: "She also sought an order that I could not "harass, attack, strike, threaten, assualt (sexually or otherwise), hit, follow, stalk , destroy personal property, keep under surveillance, block movements, contact .".... She lost on all counts."
			- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.
			] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
	Surely you are entitled not to be harassed,attacked or assaulted regardless of whether or not you have an order to say so... ] (]) 00:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
	:Having seen an old friend's restraining order against her abusive ex, such language would seem to be boilerplate for such a thing. IANAL. YMMV. Do not bounce Happy Fun Ball. --] (]) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			=== Context ===
	It wasn't the wording on the order that I was querying so much,as the impression given that 'she did not get this order granted, so I am free to harass or assault her as much as I want because there's no little bit of paper to say I can't'...] (]) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
			- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
			- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.
			I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
	:Ah! Well, I think everybody already knows you cannot just rape somebody no matter what a court says about a restraining order. These orders exist so that police have a reason to hold somebody without bail pending trial should they violate them, or so I understand from my casual acquaintance with these matters. --] (]) 17:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.
			] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
	== PalestineRemembered ==
			:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'd like to propose a community ban of {{Userlinks|PalestineRemembered}}. He's been through numerous mentors trying to curb his behaviour and yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles. I actually blocked him a few days ago because he came back after four days off the project and made three article edits, all of which were reverts. He's well known to edit war to get his point across. He was subject to an ] because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action, but there's still a problem with this as shown in his block log. Numerous users have tried, and failed, to lead him on the right path, but he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. Thoughts would be appreciated. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'd support an indefinite and broadly interpreted topic ban on all articles related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict--if only because judging by his edit history, it would have the effect of a siteban. ]] 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
	:I will support such a topic ban. I don't think he needs a siteban, and he might decide to contribute constructively to other topics. However, he has demonstrated an inability to adhere to NPOV editing on PIA-related articles. ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
	::A topic ban could work, and I'd certainly support it, but I just have concerns that he'd simply take his problematic editing to other pages. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
	:While I think that a topic ban will certainly become a ''de facto'' site ban, it does look like there are no options left to keep the warring down. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
	Normally we do topic bans when an editor has a problem with one area and a productive track record elsewhere. No opinion on the proposal (due to my mentorship of another party PR has been in dispute with), but suggest PR's productivity in different areas merits review since both options are under discussion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
	:I got this idea from ], in which a mostly single-purpose editor was topic-banned in a way that had the effect of a siteban. ]] 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Oh boy do I remember that case... <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose community ban''' Not everyone is knows all the details. Therefore, I oppose community ban unless and until the proposal details what are the objectionable edits (recent diffs, please) and what non-objectionable edits have been made. The prosecutor (person wanting the community ban) should present the material in a neutral fashion and not slanted toward community ban. There is mention in the beginning of this thread that the ArbCom case was closed with no action. Thus, banning may be bucking ArbCom.
	''I could change my mind if the proper background is described. Based only on the information above (and not doing extensive original research), I must default to oppose.'' ] (]) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing '''my''' pages" ('''emphasis''' added). {{ping|NovembersHeartbeat}}, I would strongly advise that you read ], ], ], and ]. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to ] as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but ]. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. ] (]) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I have to agree with Presumptive. Can we have some actual evidence of disputed conduct, please? I'm a little concerned that we seem to be rushing to a topic ban without any discussion of specific issues. I couldn't in good faith support such an action merely on the say-so of an admin (sorry Ryan, nothing personal!). -- ] (]) 07:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::Sorry guys, I thought this was an extremely well known problem with his editing. Numerous admins have been involved with him before. I'm at work today, so I won't be able to provide more details until after work, but I'll certainly get the diffs out when I've finished. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::OK, thanks for that. I've seen mentions of his name before on AN/I but I would imagine that most of us won't have much awareness of what's going on with him at the moment. If you could cite specific problems that would be a great help. -- ] (]) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	* PalestineRemembered is, I believe, precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed. A textbook case of an agenda-driven account. If he wants to contribute productively to other areas then fine, but his involvement in articles related to Israel and Palestine is, as far as I can tell, a substantial drain on everybody else concerned and serves to perpetuate the state of dispute on those articles. I'd be prepared to rethink this position if anyone can show me evidence of PR proposing a moderate compromise in any dispute, and that compromise achieving consensus. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Of his last 100 edits, most are not in article space. He seems to be involved in many discussions on talk pages and noticeboards, but isn't editing articles much. What's the specific problem? --] (]) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::The specif problem is that his article-space edits are either reverts, or tendentious editing based on bad sources, and that his Talk-space edits are soapboxing, which does not improve articles. In short, he is a net detriment to the project. ] (])
	* Since joining wikipedia, PR has been blocked 13 times, by 9 different administrators. He has been assigned mentorship as a result of an ArbCom case against him, but has exhausted the patience of 4 different mentors, of whom Ryan p, the nominator of these sanctions, is the latest. I don’t believe I’ve seen any other editor on WP with a block log quite as long as his – almost all of which is related to disruptive editing on I-P articles. I find myself in agreement with Guy on both points he makes – that this is precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed, and that this is a textbook case of an agenda-driven account, which PR himself admits. I would support a topic ban from all I-P related articles, and if PR wants to be a positive contributor to the project, there are 2 million other articles for him to work on. ] (]) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Apart from the history, could someone please explain what spurred this move recently? I understand if people think that in the past PR was uncivil. I do think s/he takes a harsh and unconciliatory tone. However, in recent months I have mostly encountered him/her at ], and I guess other than taking a harsh tone, I can't see what the problem has been recently - s/he has not engaged in edit-warring there.] (]) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	*'''support topic ban''' Given that he has gone through 4 different mentors and that the latest is now calling for a general ban on this user, and the length of PR's block log, I really don't see a reasonable answer. PR makes occasionally good edits, but most are just POV pushing. Also I have some hope that a topic ban might teach PR to work better within the community framework so that he can eventually return to these articles. ] (]) 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Support topic ban''' per everyone else. PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful. He has been guilty of calling Zionists "proud of their murderous racism," spreading Zionist conspiracy theories,, comparing Zionists with Nazis, comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers, and basically committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. Enough is enough. --] (]) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::GHcool, I just took a look at the links you inserted re: the nazi comment and "murderous racism", thinking that if indeed PR said these things, s/he should have been blocked at the time. However, forgive me, but I did a search on "nazi" and "murderous" and did not see the comments. Could you please specify where the comments are? Thanks much, ] (]) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::For that first diff, scroll down to the section on Norman Finkelstein, open it, and then take a look at PR's comment (the last one in that section). He does indeed use the statement GHcool ascribes to him. I've not looked at the others, but if they are similar to the first, the search function will not find keywords inside collapsed comments. ''']''' <small>]</small> 02:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I just spent 15 minutes more than I should have to try to find a single one of the alleged comments, and did not.Please link directly to the relevant page when quoting incendiary comments of this sort. In fact, if you could do so here and now that would be appropriate. Thanks, ] (]) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Comment''': GHcool's links are from December 2006 to January 2008. People may prefer to look at the diffs Jayjg provides below, which are from July 31 to August 1, 2008 (besides the SPA link of 13 May 2008). Some of GHcool's links are not diffs. Here's the "murderous racism" diff: ; PalestineRemembered was blocked the following day. Here's a diff from the 3rd link GHCool provided: . ] (]) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	*Comment. It would help to give links to the ArbCom case, which I believe required that PR be placed under mentorship, and the main AN/I's etcetera about PR, esp those dealing with mentorship. Note also that the Ryan himself has been PR's mentor for some time. The specific history would help put concerns over editing in context. Thanks. ] | ] 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Both ] and ] are adducing evidence from an exchange between a certain Rubin and PR that took place in December 2006. Rubin was wrong, and PR was right in that exchange, since the former was trying to bracket the fact that Finkelstein is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. The remark about 'Zionist racism' in that specific exchange, refers to 'Zionist politicians' not to Zionists, and in this regard PR has been intentionally misrepresented, apart from the fact that evidence from two years ago should not be dredged up to push a complaint regarding contemporary behaviour. It should not have been said, but that the allusion is to Israeli politicians whose pages had been strongly defended from any attempts to annotate both their racist beliefs, and murderous past is evident. PR's point was that Finkelstein, a son of Holocaust survivors, had been subject to relentless attack because he was critical of Israel's record on human rights, whereas Zionist politicians with a past <BLP vio removed> have pages less prone to editorial assault. Ryan must have good reasons, on contemporary evidence, to make his complaint. That evidence will no doubt be forthcoming, and it is that which must form the basis for an eventual judgement. It should not be contaminated by evidence from prior cases (like the misrepresentations used here). The remark that troubles me in Ryan's charge is this:'yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.' Off the top of my head I could think of a dozen bad editors who push, in edits, a singlemindedly pro-israeli POV, and have records expressing disdain or contempt for the other party that is supposed to be represented. They have overall enjoyed far more hospitality than people who are said to mirror their bias on the Palestinian side. They are edit warriors pushing an extremist pro-Israeli POV, cripple pages and making life difficult for serious contributors, and no one moves a finger. Perhaps they stick around because their opponents do not complain as much as they do. ] (]) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Hi. <s>Just wanted to add a note or two. GHcool and Horlogium are absolutely not edit-warriors in any sense of the word. That term needs to be used with a little more care. you can bet that I will not </s> We cannot allow this proceeding to degenerate into name-calling of any sort.If action is desired on Palestine Remembered, I urge the committee or other ruling body to issue a strong statement on his actions in regards to proper procedures. thanks. --] (]) 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Comment to Sm8900: I believe Nishidani was talking about "''a dozen bad editors''" and not GHcool and Horlogium when he was mentioning mirroring PalestineRemebered's alleged bias and getting away with it. I disagree with his "one-sidedness of wikipedia" assessment but do agree that some of the diffs have been a bit old and more of a reminder of why he was assigned forced mentorship than examples of recent misconduct. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) clarify. 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Ok, good point. thanks for the clarification. --] (]) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Just a note to thank ] for the precision with which he read my remarks and the intended meanings. It was very decent of you, thanks. ] (]) 09:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Apologies. I will retract my comments. thanks. --] (]) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
	:::::It is a good point. I would add, however, that Nishidani appears to have done exactly what PR did years ago, except he named a specific ] as "murderous" and "racist." I'd like to request that he immediately refactor those remarks. <font color="green">]</font> 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*'''Oppose''' ban, prefer a long block - perhaps 3 months? Agree with Jaakobou about the diffs. ] (]) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
			I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.
	*'''Oppose''' ban. Due to the very heated nature of this subject, I propose that ALL parties in this discussion and everyone involved be banned for 5 days effective 4 August 2008 until 9 August 2008. No block would be made in the record but if there is ANY editing, a formal 5 day block would be placed. Since I have commented here, I would be included. Let's all stop fighting. ] (]) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' ban. The "violations" cited by Jayjg are painfully mild, and mostly occurred on talk pages. Considering that PalestineRemembered has pretty clearly been targeted for intensified scrutiny for wrong-doing in the past, the weak evidence suggests that he/she has truly given very little cause for complaint. Ryan Postlewait clearly should not be mentoring her/him, however. ] (]) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
	===Further discussion===
	*'''Support'''. I don't understand the issue to begin with; ] ''was'' an whose every edit is propaganda and every Talk: page comment is a typically irrelevant ], often with ] violations thrown in for spice. In other words, the editor behind the "PalestineRemembered" account is saying that the account is a secondary account used only to edit I-P related areas. I say ''was'' an admitted SPA because the fact that he has started to edit articles outside of the I-P area indicates that ] is now merely a garden-variety sockpuppet account, rather than an a supposedly legitimate ]. As for examples? A quick glance through his past week's edits show a , a , and some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor in which he claims, ''inter alia'', that "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens". This is the kind of tendentious nonsense ] liberally spreads on Talk: pages and articles. In reality, historians don't agree on this at all, and the latest book on the subject concludes that he was a war hero who saved 12,000-18,000 lives. The book, by the way, won the 2007 Nereus Writers' Trust Non-Fiction Prize, and was shortlisted for the 2008 Charles Taylor Literary Prize for Non-Fiction. As for 3 months, if one thing characterizes the editor behind ] it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::The "sockpuppet" allegation seems to have been based on a . <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I urge everyone to read the diffs posted by Jay - that's exactly the behaviour that's problematic. He summed it up when he said PR uses WP to soapbox - to me, it looks like one of his only aims here. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Entirely possible that your interpretation of PR's behaviour is true. However, that does not emerge from Jay's diffs in the least. For example, attempting to trim overuse of the very marginal Paul Bogdanor, who has compared Vietnamese land reform to the Holocaust and Noam Chomsky to Holocaust deniers, is hardly problematic. Quoting what was close to the standard view of Kastner, a man for whose tragic story I personally have tremendous sympathy, is hardly grounds for a ban. Tendentious nonsense is not, of course, limited in this area of WP to PR. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oh, fucking please.''' ''“He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV"'' – what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a ] made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place. Take Ryan off PR's mentorship and keep an eye on Jayjg, who has a troubling record of harassing PR and lying about his editing. PR has a bit of a ] problem, but it is nothing next to the deceptions of his accusers.--] (]) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::And with that post, G-Dett violated ] and ] and committed the ] logical fallacy. I ask that he refrain from committing ] and violating Misplaced Pages policy in the future. Thank you in advance. --] (]) 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::I was going to congratulate the community for not attacking anyone daring to defend me. This makes a startling and very welcome difference from everything that has happened before on countless absurd and evidence-free "disciplinaries" raised against me. It's no wonder that not one of those people (ie everyone who has known me here longest and found me a careful and cooperative editor) dared to speak earlier. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
	::::GHCool, I’m not sure what you mean here by tu quoque. I do not think PR’s transgressions – which consist chiefly of a querulous, windy, SOAPy style of talk-page engagement – merit a permanent ban. If he were doing this in an area of the encyclopedia where quiet, polite, high-quality collaborative editing were the norm, it might be justified to move thus against him – but he’s not. He’s editing in an area of the encyclopedia where hackery, demagoguery, policy distortions and even large-scale hoaxes are the norm, where ] finds himself article-banned for a month, and where the most prolific and influential editor – an admin and former arbcom member, no less – is a full-time propagandist. It is this latter admin whose thoroughly (and I do mean thoroughly) discredited charges against PR last year resulted in the snarled web of litigious pseudo-drama of which this thread is only the latest example (see Jay’s deliberately deceptive posts about PR on Ryan’s talk page in recent weeks, which Ryan appears to have taken at face value). Had Jay done the decent thing and retracted his spring-2007 accusations once they were thoroughly exploded, the matter would have been cleared up and we wouldn’t have so many editors and admins still stumbling around in a fog. But he didn’t. Instead he repackaged his accusations as insinuations, thus throwing a cloak of deniability over his ongoing crusade against PR.
			] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::It is this snarled web, not PR’s talk-page speechifying, which represents the real drain on the community’s resources. Notwithstanding his guilelessness, PR is very well-read in the subjects he edits. His occasionally breaches of citation etiquette (things he finds in secondary sources he seems to want to cite to primary sources, I don’t know why) could ‘’easily’’ be cleared up by good-faith editors; instead, his detractors pounce upon innocent mistakes and rev up the engines of insinuation in an effort to get him banned. The reason they want him banned – make no mistake about it – is that he is pro-Palestinian and they are pro-Israel. Sadly, there are a number of good-faith, neutral editors and admins who have had the wool pulled over their eyes. As with 80% of the editors on I/P articles, including you and me, PR’s edits come from a discernable point of view. But there is an oft-forgotten yet absolutely essential distinction between editors who make POV-edits (bad partisan edits justified by spurious policy arguments) and editors whose good edits reveal, in the aggregate, a partisan point of view. PR is the latter kind of partisan, and he wears his politics on his sleeve. He is the target of an ongoing campaign of harassment by the former kind of partisan, who disguises his politics in a high-concept, even baroque form of ]smanship, with all of the predictable consequences.--] (]) 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			: This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Exasperation shared. Ryan evidently is exasperated, with mentorship, and is in his rights to complain. Many are exasperated by the nonsense adduced to sustain his suit, particularly by Jayjg. Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest, and the mastery of wiki rules you display evinces an instrumental use of them to keep out material you think damaging to that interest, and, in my experience, is rarely employed to the advantage of creating a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia. If I've broken some rule in saying what most editors on my side of the line believe obvious, by all means take the requisite action.
			:I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ]&thinsp;] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Are those who rush to judgement familiar with the intricate literature on the subjects PR alludes to? Jayjg clearly isn't, his screed and diffs are a travesty, with a certain specious gesture towards evidence, but which, read against the historical literature, are just that, a clever piece of selective culling of highly partial evidence. It is a matter of context, and one's instincts about where editors are pushing things in defiance of broad historical knowledge. All one need do is wonder why he, otherwise so insistant on links, does not link us to ], or to ], or ], etc. Jayjg holds to ransom a large number of potential edits I or anyone else could make on numerous pages ], ], Israeli Settlements, or ], and his refrain is, you need an area specialist on every occasion to qualify as a reliable source. Thus I cannot cite a book that was not shortlisted for a minor literary prize but shortlisted as one of the best books of 2007 on Slate, because its author David Shulman, one of the foremost academic experts on Dravidian languages, a peace activist fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, Israeli academic, with years of work in the Occupied Territories observing settler violence, is not a qualified expert on settlers, according to Jayjg! Now neither Paul Bogdanor nor Mitchell Bard are anywhere near reliable sources (they are people without a proper academic grounding it the subjects they airily descant on), and PR's dismissal of them was a correct call. For Jayjg to hold Pr to ransom on this is to question the quality of civil language employed in order to obstruct an appropriate edit on content, as is usual. It is, in Jayjg's case, a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, to challenge PR's dismissal of sources like those, and yet challenge, as Jayjg invariably does, academic sources critical of Israeli policies whenever they are no compatible with the strictest reading of ]. The same for the Nereus book winner book on Kastner. What PR says is what Eichman said in his memoirs: '(Kastner) agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation. if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain.' (for Eichmann and co, who got $1,600,000 in exchange for allowing 1600 Jews to survive out of the 750,000 listed for extermination. Anyone who was not Orthodox, Zionist, prominent, an orphan, a refugee, a paying person, a member of Kastner's family or a revisionist had no chance).PR, like the large majority of historians on this figure, and like Judge Halevi at his trial, is appalled by someone who, privy to the doom awaiting hundreds of thousands of fellow Jews, 'sold his soul to the devil' by not giving them at least the chance to know what awaited them, to allow them to flee, resist, fight, and kept them in ignorance of their fate while getting out a few, including his relatives, 'useful' for Zionism.
			::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Neither Bogdanor (whose viciously bitchy and mendacious nonsense on Shahak's page Jayjg apparently supports) nor the Hungarian lady in question meet Jayjg's criteria for reliable sources. Neither is a qualified historian or area specialist, in the sense he invariably adduces before allowing an edit on a sensitive subject where Israel's image is concerned. I happen to disagree with PR on many things (while wholegheartedly sharing PR's view that a very large number of I/P articles are disgracefully unbalanced), but there is absolutely no doubt that for some years Pr has become a standard target for many editors who desire a permanent ban. It is irresponsible to run to administration every time PR returns, over a small number of edits (and the material cited is extremely thin), and scream 'raus'!!! '''Form''' is increasingly what trumpts '''substance''' in these altercations (ChrisO's recent problems egregiously underline the absurdity. Vassyana's criticism of ], on unbelievably narrow grounds another. Look at his recent florligeium of remarks made by many respected editors from the Jerusalem Talk page, and judge the material PR is accused of in the light of the harshness of their remarks and insinuations). Once more appeal to proper 'form' is snuffing out content. PR indeed has a problem with the exacting wikiquette forms (who doesn't?). It is true however that on more than one occasion in the past, good (adversary) material PR has come up with is not wanted by many on those articles, and PR's deficits in 'attitude' are the excuse employed to block the material PR might post. I say this as someone who has reverted PR, supported people like Tewfik against some of PR's edits, and as one who thinks PR's failure in the past to learn not to lead with one's chin is disappointing. ] (]) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	'''PalestineRemembered speaks:''' ] has urged everyone read the diffs posted by Jayjg, a most excellent idea.
	*Examine the light-weight source with which Jayjg seeks to defend Kastner - a man who undoubtedly deceived to their deaths some 450,000 (400,000?) Hungarian Jews on behalf of the Nazis. (For profit according to most people, and at a point in the war when many of the Jews could almost certainly have saved themselves).
	*Examine the way Jayjg defends the blogger Paul Bogdanor, and the (apparent) propagandist Mitchell Bard. So much for writing an encyclopedia to WP:ReliableSources. (Where shall we discuss many more examples?)
	*I have no problem with ] (as I said at the time). But people could be very interested in the . Again, I'd seem to be on the side of WP:POLICY, scholarship and good writing.
	*I attempted to deal with the broad sweep of these allegations (eg the claim that my 3 or 4 real mentors had any problems with my conduct) on my , have people missed it? I have more offers of a mentor - even the shocking experience of those who went before doesn't stop brave people and lovers of this project coming forwards.
	*Lastly, please ponder the logic of these accusations of sock-puppetry. If we didn't know better, we'd think people were desperately casting round for any excuse to get rid of a really useful and scrupulously honest editor, with a strong preference for good sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Its a shame that PalestineRemembered chose to defend himself largely by using ] logical fallacies. I hope he doesn't expect the Misplaced Pages community to be swayed by this ill conceived tactic. --] (]) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::My fellow editors might like to know that "tu quoque" is Lation for "a hypocritical accusation". They will have doubtless realized by now that I don't lie, I don't cheat, I don't sock-puppet and I have a passion for good sources. Nor do I edit-war, make false accusations of vandalism or tell people that a highly regarded and very well-cited son of Holocaust survivors - what price RELIABLE SOURCES when this goes on? GHcool's objections were dealt with above - his attitude to WP:RS and BLP appear to be the diametric opposite of mine.
	:::I'm sorry that ]'s UserPage has been by administrative action without warning, it's long survival over all protests might have been a useful precedent to name and shame cheats. All assistance to put integrity back into editting will be very welcome. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose ban''' per Nishidani in section "A Review of the evidence. What evidence?" below. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			== Emoji redirect ==
	===Further discussions, sect 2===
			{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	'''Support topic ban for user to review and understand what is required of wikipedia editors''' For the record, I am the editor who last time. Since that time, I am aware of enough times where PR has deliberately skirted, or outright ignored, policies, guidelines, and the advice of his various mentors in order to continue a pattern of POV posting and subtle user harrassment. I have been in contact with his mentors, most recently Ryan, regarding these issues, and, to my chagrin, have never seen anything remotely like remorse, a desire to do better, a desire to work ''with'' other users, especially those with whom he has fundamental disagreements. As one who deals with the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts as a mentor and one who tries to defuse inter-editor issues behind the scenes, I have had little other than frustration from the direction of PR, and I have lost the ability to believe that his edits are in good faith and meant to better the project. Rather, I believe he has acted as a self-employed '']'' and POV warrior, and his continued presence in Palestinian/Israeli articles will serve no other purpose than disruption until such time as the community and project can be assured that PR will edit in a manner befitting and becoming of the encyclopedia. -- ] (]) 13:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Well, where is the new evidence, Avi? Without substantial new evidence, this is beginning to look like a very odd scalp-hunt for an old target, using pretexts to rid a good researcher, albeit with a loose tongue, whose outlook others dislike, simply in order to thin the ‘opposition’.
			{{abot}}
			== Topic ban appeal ==
	:I have reread all of GHcool’s diffs, and fail to understand how his description of them corresponds to their real content. I was totally unaware of what G-Dett now remarks on, the evidence-gathering campaign by Jayjg waged on Ryan’s page recently. but if so, then I suggest Ryan ignore it, drop the mentorship and leave it at that.
			Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The only evidence raised so far is a shabby hodgepodge of trivia, in part trawled from ancient archives (2006). The rest is Jayjg's handiwork, patently instrumental and question-begging, since he demonstrably employs the same techniques he gives out as deploring in PR recently. If PR is a 'pov-warrior', what is Jayjg, now his/her main accuser? Had Ryan pressed the case on his own, instead of delegating the 'proof' to such a completely unreliable source as Jayjg, this complaint might have warranted respect. Not one of you lift a fingers in editorial activity to emend the disgraceful state of a page which Jayjg has done much to reduce to a medley of vicious innuendo, a page smearing a Jew of great learning, humane passion and critical witness (according to all those who knew him personally), something which PR has consistently drawn attention to, a wiki page not one of those who wish for PR to be banned cares to improve beyond its present state of being a savage indictment by innuendo and vicious whispering of an honourable and distinguished Jew, a page which should not be tolerated on an encyclopedia. How easy it is to pick off fellow-editors by formalstic cavilling, while preening oneself in insouciant disregard of the substance at stake. As long as many persist in jumping at editors for 'tone' and 'civility' while airily waiving aside the substance of that editor's complaint, or refusing to improve the pages whose disgracefully unbalanced quality that editor protests, all of these calls for a ban will sound hollow. You are all supposed to be wedded to an idea of encyclopedicity, which means, precisely, forsaking national gamesmanship in order to secure comprehensive neutral articles. Where is the new evidence? So far we have nothing other than Ryan's fatigue with mentorship and a patchy screed by a 'POV warrior' on the opposite side, who watches his p's and q's meticulously while objectively stacking texts with a partisan slant, in contempt of the ideals of encyclopedicity. Where is the appropriate wiki link for the practice of schadenfreudlicher scalp-taking?] (]) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Nishidani, Did you see the links that Jayjg gave out? I don't think July 31, 2008 is old news. I have not taken the time, nor do I have the time to go through it all and look at the whole situation, but please don't say there is no new evidence without mentioning the stuff that folks have put forth. You can claim that those links are not valid evidence, or that they are not the whole story, but lets not ignore them. Doing so only makes the waters muddy. —— ''']]'''</font> 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::If you don't have the time to check through all the links, and can't remember a thousand unsaid things from past conflicts which relate to how all participants here read what's going on, there's little point in making the remark you made.] (]) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::There is very much a point. You seem to be telling me and everyone else watching that there is no new violations, but above I see people saying there are new violations, they even provide diffs. What I was telling you above was to make sure you saw those diffs, as it appeared to me you had not seen them. Doing so only muddies the water. —— ''']]'''</font> 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I enjoyed the stylistic variation between your two posts. 'makes the waters muddy' and then 'muddies the water', but the aesthetic ''frisson'' was somewhat spoiled by reading 'there '''is''' no new violations'.] (]) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::You are free to assert that, however you are not explaining why what some people are asserting are violations, are not violations. Anyone can say there are or are not violations, but just saying that does not make it so. You have me confused, you said there were no recent violations, yet I'm seeing posts from July 31 being offered as evidence. I don't think that is "old". If it is not evidence, please explain why it is not, concisely. —— ''']]'''</font> 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: A general point. Most of the problems in the world arise from communities consolidating their identity by trusting in the in-group hearsay. Democracies survive when there are a sufficient number individuals dedicated to questioning the commodified clichés of groupist thinking/ideology/ whatever, who actually check things out with their own eyes, reason by their own lights, and measure the world by their real as opposed to hallucinated experiences of it in circulation. This tempers the irrationality of hearsay, and collectivist imaginings. So, like others involved, read through the diffs, when you get the time, preferably look at the page's whole context also, then make notes on each diff within its context, check the inferences made about what PR is said to be violating in those diffs, and then form your own judgement. Do not rely on what I, or Jayjg, or GHcool, or anyone else says. Form your own judgement and then report back.] (]) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::That is a valid point, however I was hoping for some kind of backup to your assertion that there is no new evidence. A starting point so to say for others to see what you mean. I see plenty of cited recent evidence from those saying there are violations, but I'm seeing nothing but wordplay from those that say there are not any violations. All I'm asking is someone point out why the diffs as presented are wrong. If I have missed the counter evidence amongst the sea of text, I'd appreciate someone pointing me at it. Thanks :) —— ''']]'''</font> 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	], I have been in contact multiple times with Ryan via e-mail, as some of the issues relate to other editors. You may check Ryan's talk page history for some of the more obvious and open issues. Regardless, this is my opinion based on the time since August 2007, when I prevented PR being banned then. I do not believe he has taken the proper advantage of the mentorship'''s''' he was afforded, and the chances he was given; I believe he continues to edit in an openly POV style; and I believe that his edits detract from wikipedia significantly more than they add. While I was cognizant of the positive edits that he has made back in August 2007, my reasoned opinion based on the intervening time, the number of times I had to be approached by person(s) I mentored, and the contradistinction between edits of people that I know are trying to act in accordance with our policies and PR's edits, have convinced me that the mentorship experiment was a failure at this time, and that PR needs to take a long-term break from anything like Palestinian/Israeli articles, if not the project as a whole. -- ] (]) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Perhaps then most should take a long holiday, because in human terms, these I/P articles have little to show after several years of intensive work. Who's to blame, a few people like PR? Come now. PR's behaviour is merely an infinitesimal part of what is problematic in this area. You can drive him or her off, and the structural impasse, which is one of diffidence, suspicion, and refined edit-warring while keeping mum on motivations, will remain, and wiki articles in this area will retain the reputation for slipshod tendentious amateurishness they have in academic circles.
			::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::I'm familiar with the record you allude to. I am also familiar with something missed here. I've tangled with PR on several occasions, and thrown the weight (in nanograms of course) of my judgement against PE and in favour of her opponent, who was a strong pro-Israeli editor while active. Now PR was no doubt perplexed by this, but did accept that my judgements were not grounded in some 'bias', and took note. I have my biases, as do we all. PR flags his/hers: many of PR's opponents go out of their way to finesse their obstructive editing by meticulous care for the rulebook. The result is, PR, leading with the chin, has copped a large number of administrative raps on the knuckles (mixed metaphor), whilst many of those editors whom both PR, I and many others regard as destructive editors in terms of the criterion of 'encyclopedicity' have a clean police sheet. If there were a minimal regard by many of these editors to revert bad edits made by peers from their own side, much of the frustration that PR displays, and the rest of us more or less hide, would wither away. There isn't much of that around. There is a very strong tendency to stay silent, and leave the management of conflict (a conflict on POVs) to respective members of opposing sides. That loud silence lends substance to a sense that a collegiate atmosphere is operating here on one side, solidly determined to ignore the old Jewish dictum, expropriated by Christianity,''quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides''. I regard that as a recipé for disaster, and, in the I/P area, one reason why so many articles languish in a deplorable state. I have had severe problems with Jaakobou in the past, and it was with relief that I had occasion to note, before my withdrawal, one or two occasions where, unprompted, he reverted a bad edit by a poor contributor on his own side. This is the spirit that should be cultivated by experienced and reliable editors on both sides (and I addressed my remarks to you because you qualify, as far as I have interacted with you, as a rational editor of considerable experience). It is the edits not dutifully made by so many editors that disappoint, as much as the pettifogging obstructionism. The problem is not PR, who increasingly looks like an example with which to illustrate ]'s theories: the problem is a lack of will to monitor I/P articles for encyclopedic quality by reining in anyone, from whatever side, editing out of a nationalist perspective, rather than an NPOV perspective. An embattlement mentality will persist in the political area for decadess to come. It should not be reflected here: Israel has no more to lose by a clear-eyed impartial approach to history than its communities had by moving out of the ] under the auspices of the ]. Indeed the gains to be gathered in are enormous. The genius and generosity of spirit of Judaism's multitude of scholars, thinkers, poets and writers is absent from these articles: there is almost no trace here of the wit, intelligence, acuity of refined judgement one instinctively associates with that tradition, and that is alive whenever Jewish people argue with each other. This is soap-boxing, irrelevant, a violation of WP:this and that, no doubt, the useless drivel of at least on editor who has given up on wiki articles (as opposed to an occasional critical kibitz). If only one had more interlocutors that mirror this heritage, so much of the frustration that blocks the expeditious drafting of I/P articles would fade away, and these incessant recourses to arbitrative sanctions over trivia would die on their feet. Regards ] (]) 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::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 ==
	:::Nishdani, I apologize for my lack of time, and thus inability to continue this discussion at length. I do not argue with you that there are systematic issues with P/I articles in toto, but I do not see how allowing editors whose methods seem to be more uncivil than is the norm serves to ''help'' the situation. I think that most everyone who is heavily involved should sit back for a while and take a break, and then approach the articles with the idea to make them truly NPOV, which is to have the major points of view described in proportion to those points of views proliferations; to remove ]-class statements from the articles where they are sued solely to further one side or the other, to use respectable, reliable, and verifiable sources, with indications of what those sources are, to try and remove any overly-colorful adjectives, and to allow the reader to follow proper source links to the original information to allow the reader to make up their own opinion. There are shades of color within the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and, mirroring the real world, the articles may be contentious for a number of years to come. However, there is no possibility of a working consensus (<u>Avi's definition #22</u>: A working consensus is the version of an article that is the least offensive to the greatest number of editors) unless the back-and-forth and discussions are performed with ''exaggerated'' civility and cordiality. We have to do our best to minimize (as prevention is impossible) the ideological struggle using wikipedia as its battleground, on both sides. Which is why, I return to saying, that from my recollections, PR has not acted in this manner and I have had more than one editor complain about what they perceive is a double-standard when it comes to PR's ability to seemingly be less careful about ] than other editors. PR is a very intelligent editor, that is obvious. I only wish that he used some of that prodigious talent to work '''with''' people as opposed to against them. -- ] (]) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the reply, Avi and I apologize for having unfairly drawn on your time, since I am no longer involved in editing. One point however, which perhaps you can explain to G-Dett by email. I have disposed of most of Jayjg's charges, which is what Ryan advises us to consult. The Ali Hirsi remark is on a Talk page, as is the remark, which I fully endorse and find innocuous, that 'Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial'. That is true, by any objective standards. In any case, wiki articles should be seriously sourced, and he should never be cited on those grounds alone.
			::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)
	:::PR here is not editing into the page on these people the judgement expressed. She (sorry PR but it is not obvious to me that you are male). The Ali Hirsi remark should have, out of pure curiosity, drawn requests for sources that justify PR's suggestion that Hirsi admitted to lying (if this is improper on a talk page, please review the Saeb Erekat archives for repeated suggestions he is lying, not sanctioned, and in my view rightly so because what is said on talk pages must be distinguished from what is edited in on articles. On Talk pages all kinds of material and suggestions should be broached, and not be subject to sanctions). Secondly, the Ali Hirsi contrast is made against what occurs, I insist on this, with the shockingly violent treatment meted out to Israel Shahak's memory '''in the meat of his article'''. That page is full of irresponsible trash, by half-baked polemicists who conspicuously and mischievously misrepresent the truth. Jayjg is holding PR's fortune's hostage to a judgement about Hirsi which he considers a 'violation of BLP' (on a talk page), while, at the same time, defending vicious crap about a dead person widely regarded by many eminent Jews and goys who knew him personally, some of whom I have corresponded with, who find that page infamous, and wiki beneath contempt because of this kind of editing. So, pal, this particular suit does look ugly. There is so far, not a skerrick of evidence to warrant the extreme measures requested. Much here is racking over a few bits and pieces and reading them in the light of past ANI records. Best wishes for your work. I do hope, sometime in the future, wiser minds prevail to secure working conditions that allow present and future editors to stop frigging about with personal battles, and enjoy working here, instead of feeling as though they were colleagues of Tantalus and Sisyphus. You, and many others, have more stoicism than I can afford to muster. If I stayed on in I/P, I'd only be lynched for being tempted into exclaiming 'fuck!' with a more colloquial colour than the exquisite G-Dett allows. Regards ] (]) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Andra Febrian report ==
	(outdent)Avi, I have a great deal of respect for your editing and am a little taken aback by this, but would genuinely reconsider my position if you were to provide some concrete evidence of bannable offenses in PR’s work for me to look over. I would be especially impressed by evidence supporting the claim that (a) what he does is out of the ordinary on I/P pages, and (b) that his contributions cannot be productively modified and absorbed by editors keener on collaboration than score-settling.
			"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 ===
	I wonder if meanwhile you might also consider the possibility that mentorship has had negative consequences for PR. There are a lot of passionate and, shall we say, colorful characters on I/P pages; he doesn’t strike me as out of the ordinary on that score. He was treated with malice and bad faith in many of his early encounters with relatively powerful editors on Misplaced Pages, and these encounters left a taint on him for editors only glancingly familiar with the background. His editing and etiquette could certainly stand some improvement, so the case for mentorship seemed to make sense, but insofar as it has tended to codify an undeserved taint, he understandably chafes at it, perhaps resulting in worse behavior.--] (]) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::G-Dett, I will try and respond with instances for you, but via e-mail to spare all involved, within the next couple of days, and if I do not, please remind me. Thank you. -- ] (]) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)		:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
	:G-Dett, I've been gone for a while, but if the ordinary for IP pages is what I'm seeing here, then the ordinary needs putting to rights. There is no excuse for bad behavior, from anybody. If the behavior in this area has deteriorated so badly, I suggest that you guys consider moveing up the dispute resolution chain and go to arbcom. —— ''']]'''</font> 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
			'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
			'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
			'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
			<br/>
			I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
			:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
	'''Oppose ban'''. PR's attitude toward editing may not be ideal, but we need to put his behavior into context. Let me give my experience with editing some of the Israel/Palestine articles. I need to give some details, so I can't be brief.
			{{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 ==
	I was involved in editing the Hamas and Hezbollah articles until last year but I left because of the attitude of the editors, which is very confrontational. Almost everyone sees editing these article as a game to get as much of their POV included in the articles, the rules of the games are the wiki rules such as the one on reliable sources which can be bent almost as far as you like. I did briefly edit the Hezbollah article this year in March when I saw a very strange statement, saying that Hezbollah has admitted being responsible for the terrorist attacks in Argentina, in that article that every regular editor should know was wrong (if true that would be breaking news, so you wouldn't expect it to read about it somewhere burried in an article on court proceedings).
			{{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 ==
	To my horror it was GHCool who had edited in the sentence. Although GHCool and I had disagreed on many things, I did have the feeling that GhCool was more reasonable than most other editors. I argued a bit with GHCool about that edit, but GHCool told me that the edit was allowed (quoted from a reliable source). I was disappointed about this attitude and I decided never to return to these articles as that is clearly a waste of time if even the best editors are behaving in this way.
			{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== "The Testifier" report ==
	Now, I actually decided to stop editing these aticles a bit earlier after two frustrating incidents last year. On the Hamas page I tried to find a compromize on a sentence saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks". This sentence is problematic because the source isn't clear about how this was determined to be the case, it is just the opinion of the author and after some time passes and the suicide attacks become more of a thing of the past. Who knows, perhaps Hamas is now "best known for being in power in Gaza"?
			{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			== Problem with creating user talk page ==
	So, I tried to argue that it would be better to write a sentence that conveys a hard fact, like "Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings against Israel". There are plenty of sources that back this up and it will remain a fact forever, no matter what happens in the future. So, you don't have the problem that the fact changes while the sources are lagging behind.
			{{atop
			| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	To my horror, most of the pro-Israeli editors opposed my move. Only Avi supported me. Humus Sapiens accused me of vandalism when I reverted back to my version, because I was removing "sourced information" (of course my version was sourced as well). Anyway, at first it wasn't clear why my stronger statement was not welcome in the article. Later it became clear to me what was really going on. Both sides are playing a game in which they want to have as much freedom to use sources to edit in dubious statements. So, if such statements get removed in favor of hard facts it constrains the freedoms of the editors, and they don't like that.
			: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)
	The final straw for me was when finding a compromize on the Hezbollah article by me was considered to be edit warring and I was refereed to this ANI board. I as not banned, but I was asked to stop behaving in that way by SlimVirgin. What was I guilty of? Well, some editor (forgot his name, he was not a regular on the Hezbollah page) included some facts on the Hezbollah page. Nothing wrong with that, but it was all under a new section called "Terrorism". Although terrorism is a "word to avoid", we can certainly call an acts of terror "terrorism". But the section contained more than terror acts alone. So, I made some changes, but I did keep all the facts that were edited in (I made a new section in which I mentioned the things that are not, by definition, terrorism).
			::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 ==
	But this is considered to be "edit warring", "violation of 3RR because of multiple complex partial reverts" etc. etc. Well, I guess that if one sees editing through the narrow window of defending/attacking Hezbollah, then that may well be the case, but then I'm not going to be involved anymore. So, I left, only to briefly return on March this year.
			] from the past month (December 2024).
	So, it should be clear that my opinion about the way the Israel/Palestine articles are edited is very negative. The fact that PR is being attacked by other involved editors who, with the exception of a few, are not any better themselves speaks volumes. The problem with these articles is huge. There are many Admins with problematic behavior as well, so the entire Palestine/Israel sector of wikipedia is a big corrupt mess that has to be sorted out. But banning PR will do noting to improve the situation, as that would be similar to Al Capone tipping off the FBI about rival mafiosi to improve his strategic position. ] (]) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	'''Absolutely no effing way''', we all know how this discussion goes: Those on the other side of the fence to PR cry bloody murder, and bring up his block log (take a look at it: The first few are completely over the top, and were placed by involved admins; after that, there are a number associated with the ArbCom case). They'll bring up the ArbCom case, which I urge everyone to read: It was not a case of PR ''coming oh-so-close to being banned''; he was accused of something he clearly didn't do. Jayjg's and Ryan's actions in and around that case can be described as nothing short of disgraceful.
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	A number of PR's supporters will claim that PR has never done a single thing wrong, and will defend his actions to the hilt.
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	A few moderates will point out that PR is far from perfect, but that anything he does wrong can be sorted out with blocks.
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] ]
			</div>
	This is never going to be anything but a partisan debate, and is yet another attempt to get rid of a thorn in the side of some editors that happen to have a different (just as extreme) POV. -- ] ] 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''Oversight changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			</div>
	As I have said above, and I will say again here, I propose that those involved consider making an ARBCOM case on this article if the editing is really as negative as you guys imply it is. However I must point out that PR is a role account (this is admitted back 6 months ago at the initial community ban thingie. I've been gone so long I don't recall exactly when that was :S ), and not the main account of the editor. If that means anything at this point I'm not sure. However I'm dismayed to see that this much dispute and namecalling is the norm for this area of the encyclopedia :( —— ''']]'''</font> 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			</div>
	:PR commented on the SPA thing ''']'''. -- ] ] 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	For those opposing further admin action, would you suggest that PR be placed with a different mentor than Ryan, or that the mentorship requirement be dropped? Perhaps you could clarify or, better yet, make a cogent counter-proposal, since the current arrangement with Ryan seems to have run its course. Thanks. ] | ] 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
	:I think ]'s suggestion is right from the dispute resolution side of things (take it to RfArb). As for mentorship, I think this thread kind of puts a bit of a hole in the current arrangement. IMO, PR seems to work much better with a mentor, so I think it'd be worth finding another. That said, I think he should be able to keep editing in the meantime, perhaps with a 1RR restriction until a mentor can be found? -- ] ] 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
			] '''Technical news'''
			* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
			] '''Arbitration'''
	=== RFC? ===
			* 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}}.
	I'm making a new section here as this is a new idea. My suggestion to you all is to open a ] on PalestineRemembered. I think its better to attempt to come to a resolution there, rather then here on WP:AN. Should the request for comment fail, there is always ]. Unless an administrator acts on the above conversation (the above 3 sections), I think it will do the community better to continue this discussion and put alternatives forth at an RFC. —— ''']]'''</font> 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	:I suggest the whole case be dismissed as a piece of roguish abuse of wiki policies, prompted by one user whose evidence Ryan, who is busy, evidently hasn't checked. I will open a section below with a complete review of the evidence, or rather the mockup of pseudo-evidence to settle old vendettas and get a scalp. What, in short, ]] requested me to do. There is simply nothing here (Avi may have evidence which is far stronger than what we have here, so my remarks are limited to the material on which everyone who has participated here has made their respective calls). Gentlemen, this has been a disgraceful operation. ] (]) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
	::The point of an RFC is to make it clear if there is an issue or if there is not an issue. —— ''']]'''</font> 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			----
	::::Ryan ends his complaint by a request for comment (what has occurred here is an informal RfC). There have been many comments, and 2 sources documenting the reasons why a ban should be made. GHcool's evidence is ancient history, a few diffs from two years to eight months ago, and so wholly irrelevant to a complaint about PR's '''recent behaviour'''. His whole effort to get at PR is an abuse of appropriate evidence and proper process. Jayjg's evidence consists of innuendos about SPA accounts and sockpuppetry, blather (] per ]) over Bogdanor and Kastner which is neither here nor there, since Jayjg, as shown, misread PR's remark; plus two elements of evidence of violation of BLP recently. All we have then, is two putative instances of violating BLP to secure checkmate, a permanent community ban. What do they consist in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali's public record is compared, on a talk page, to Shahak's, to illustrate by analogy bias in that I/P article. Mitchell Bard is contested as a proper source, correctly, since the remark quoted from him is obvious nonsense not fit for a serious encyclopedia article: and it is on a talk page. So what's the problem? So far we have these two bits, and the points made by PR would never form the basis for an ANI complaint had anyone else made them. ] (]) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
	=== A Review of the evidence. What evidence? ===
			* ]
			* ]
	1.Ryan calls for a community ban. His complaint is that mentoring Palestine Remembered has failed to stop PR from ''push(ing) his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles''.
			}}}}
			<!--
	This is startling. The majority of editors who underwrite a permanent ban will not be offended, I think, if I remark that they ‘push their pro-Israeli POVs’. No one on the other side regards User:Jayjg as anyone other than an edit-warrior with a powerful pro-Israeli POV. That is attested in every edit I have seen from him over the past two years. In the rules, as far as I understand them, there is nothing wrong with pushing a POV, most I/P articles are compromises (messy) made by parties with opposed POVs, which each side pushes. To deny this is to deny the obvious. Therefore, Ryan’s complaint, expressed thus, suggests a misapprehension about how I/P articles are written.
			-->{{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 -->
	(b) ''He's well known to edit war to get his point across.'' This is vague. Does it refer to past reputation or to present behaviour? If the latter, then this must be documented. '''Anything to do with PR's past behaviour''' is wholly immaterial to the ban requested, which must logically relate to recent behaviour.
	(c) ''He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action.'' G-Dett replied to this in the following terms, and no one has challenged their veracity:-
	::<blockquote>'what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place.’</blockquote>
	Since no one has challenged G-dett's recall of the instance, Ryan's remark self-cancels, and can be thrown out of court. In fact if anything it testifies more to the behaviour of the 'rogue administrator' who happens here to be the chief prosecutor for the case now under consideration against PR.</BR>
	(d) ''he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place''. This repeats (b) and is unsubstantiated by recent evidence. Ryan’s point is also that numerous editors have failed to get PR to toe the ‘right path’. Perhaps true, but numerous editors who appear to enjoy hauling PR under administrative sanctions, have no idea of what the ‘right path’ is, since they are happy POV pushers themselves.</BR>
	2.Ryan calls for comments. One comment was that Ryan’s own complaint comes after ] had worked Ryan’s page to raise, for the umpteenth time, apparent problems with PR’s return to editing. I haven't checked it, but then again, no one has protested the veracity of the assertion. Ryan himself did not produce evidence for his claims, but, subsequently, when Jayjg made his own case, Ryan underwrote Jayjg’s suit, as containing more or less the gravamen of his own charges. Thus functionally, Ryan’s complaint is a proxy complaint authored by Jayjg.
	Administrator ], ], Administrator ], ] (Guy), ] ] all immediately supported a site or topic ban, though no evidence has been forthcoming. They trusted Ryan’s description, or recalled PR’s archival record. ] is commendably neutral.
	], asks for evidence, as does ]. ] checks 100 recent edits and can’t see the problem. ] asks why at this particular point is PR’s past beinfg raked over? Where is the new evidence for this old complaint?
	Only with ] is an attempt at supplying evidence made. The evidence is:
	(a)Ghcool’s opinion that PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful. </BR>
	This emerges as the only reason GHcool has to press for PR's ban, personal dislike.</BR>
	(b) He has been guilty of calling Zionists '''proud of their murderous racism''' </BR>
	The link takes us to December 2006 where in reply to Robert E.Rubin’s attempt to discredit the fact that Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors, PR replied:
	::<blockquote>'There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible ''to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism''. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>
	Ghcool thus distorts the record. PR had it in for '''Zionist politicians''' (one presumes ], ], ] <BLP vio removed>, not '''Zionists'''(potentially all patriotic Israelis). The remark was in any case duly punished with a 24-hour ban, which was fair enough, though it should have been longer for the solecism in PR's remark. This is again evidence from 1 and a half years ago.
	(c) '''spreading Zionist conspiracy theories'''</BR>
	The link refers to a comment made 8 months ago, to Jaakobou:</BR>
	::<blockquote> 'I trust you'll not present yourself as having any understanding of the developing situation. The Saudi inititative is a two-state proposal that leaves Israel intact within the Green Line borders, but it does have to abide by International law (as mostly written or re-written by the US in the aftermath of 1945). And the Saudi proposal has more support amongst Palestinians than does the undefined 'two-state solution' they were offered in that poll. It might be time to start writing this article to WP:policy and reliable sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)</blockquote>
	What on earth this completely acceptable statement has to do with the crime of spreading ‘Zionist conspiracy theories’ is unclear. This is a howler, and no one picks it up.
	(d) comparing Zionists with Nazis,</BR>
	Again, the link goes through a time-capsule back to December 2006, and in reply to an editor who asks ‘why no mention of terrorist attacks on Jews’, Palestine remembered wrote:</BR>
	::<blockquote>'''You could probably write a number of very good articles on oppression aimed at Jews'''. Unfortunately, most of your allies will either be Zionists (who are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945) or anti-Zionists (who are appalled that the Holocaust is used as justification for the crimes of Israel). I'm not sure how you'll get round that one - you could start by expressing your outrage at Zionists who, whatever crimes are alleged against Israel, immediately blame the Jews. '''They fail to recognise that the Jews have suffered quite enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years'''. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>
	This again is malicious misrepresentation, since there is no equation of Zionists with Nazis. However you wish to construe what PR is saying, note that PR writes 'Zionists who..' not 'Zionists, who...'
	This now becomes a pattern with Ghcool’s evidence. None of these diffs support the dramatic tabloid titles he supplies them with in glossing their ostensible content.
	(e) comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,
	(e.i)Note 11.Takes us to an innocuous exchange of views that are far more nuanced that what Ghcool would have us believe. It dates to September 2007
	Ghcool is satisfied with the state of the ‘causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus’. PR replies.</BR>
	::<blockquote>'I think it's terrible, gravely distorting what historians say about this business. We seem to have quotations in there from "historians" even less credible than ]. We have historians who believe one thing quoted as if they believed the opposite - and editors claiming that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. PalestineRemembered 18:29, 9 September 2007</blockquote>
	I.e. David Irving is not a credible historian, since he is a denier. Neither is Schechtman, since he, in a different vein, denies obvious facts (and creates malicious untruths passed off as historiography)</BR>
	There are two David Irvings. One was the highly regarded historian of the German military praised by all academic specialists in the 1960s, the other is the Holocaust-denier. PR is referring to a number of Israeli historians of the early postwar period who were responsible for creating a completely false mythical account of the reasons for the exodus, a myth exposed as early as 1961 but which was repeated right down to the 1980s, and which found honourable mention in the aforesaid article.</BR>
	(e.ii) This refers to an exchange on Jan 14 eight months ago. PR writes:-
	::<blockquote>Yet again, we agree. But I worry the ArbCom don't know what appalling souces get rammed into I-P conflict articles. We in that article saying ''"Until ... May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands."'' I'm confident (and ] has never denied) that '''that clip, alone, is worse than anything ever seen from David Irving'''. While illiterates stalk our articles, the I-P conflict articles, and the conduct surrounding them, will disgrace us. This is a problem we can fix - but only when the ArbCom protects scholars like ]. And also ], recently hounded from the project when his patience and good-nature was trashed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</blockquote>
	Apart from the lather, PalestineRemembered again considers Schechtman worse than David Irving. Both deny or affirm absurd things. Pr quotes a notorious piece of propagandistic nonsense by Schechtman, with no basis in the historical record. No one there confuted this. What Schechtman wrote was crap, and Ghcool is only offended at the comparison with David Irving. So? </BR>
	(e.iii) Again Ghcool takes us down the time tunnel, January 2008. He complains of this remark on the talk page of ‘Jewish Lobby’:-</BR>
	::<blockquote>'''I'm somewhat handicapped discussing hate-sources because I avoid them like the plague'''. But I'd be surprised if ] is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of "gross historical fabrication") than two sources we seem to use a lot, ] and ]. The former is even quoted in a WP article with this astonishing nastiness: ''Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, '''no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands'''. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed.'' (From his book ''The Arab Refugee Problem'') Prove to me that David Duke have ever come out with anything so outlandish. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</blockquote>
	Again, PR, though guilty of hyperbole (actually Katz and Schechtman can, with extreme care, be harvested for information, as I once noted, though one must keep in mind their partisanship for terrorism) is expressing contempt for Irving and Duke, but saying to pro-Israeli editors, if you can’t stand lies against your community by holocaust-deniers, why push rubbish by Schechtman and Katz (both associated historically with an organization, the Irgun, that used terroristic methods to achieve statehood) that fabricates vicious untruths about Arabs comparable to the vicious untruths fabricated by Holocaust deniers against Jews. This is the rhetorical strategy. It may be fervid, ineptly put, but the technique is normal in persuasion by analogy.</BR>
	(f) committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. -GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	I don’t think this needs comment. Most of the newspaper sources from mainstream press that, for some, form a staple of I/P information, don’t stand a moment’s scrutiny for logical coherence. If logical fallacies were the basis for including or excluding editors, wiki would lose 95% of its regular contributers, from the most brilliant to the average editor. The information on PR provided by Ghcool therefore is void of substance, full of thin historical reminiscence of past behaviour that, in context (don’t read the bolded green patch in the link: read the whole flow and all comments for each diff) has not been exceptional on I/P articles in the past. Strongly worded, opinionated, but to the point, and often rationally argued or sourced reliably.
	Then, LamaLoLeshla notes that his tabloid headings are not backed up by the diffs. Horologium tries to be helpful, but his indications in no way clarify Ghcool’s bad diffs. Since Ghcool’s charges are ancient history, ] twigs us to a copper in the wings, as Ryan did, by telling us to at Jayjg’s forthcoming evidence based on PR’s recent editing. </BR>
	I in turn make a point about the vagueness of these charges, all old history, no evidence. ], also notes that the diffs are insufficient. Both PR and I have had a past record of conflict with him, and his remark at this point is to be thoroughly commended. He is judging this case on the merits of evidence, reading what is said closely, and making his own call. Our differences are enormous, but here is an editor who, though he has a very convinced pro-Israeli point-of-view, is measuring the evidence, against the claims, by his own lights. ] agrees with Jaakobou's call, but suggests a 3 month ban, nothing as drastic as that originally proposed.</BR>
	(3)As the case for a community ban wobbles towards a crash, Jayjg finally shows his hand.</BR>
	(3.a)Palestine remembered is a self-confessed SPA, a propagandist and soapboxer. Like Ghcool Jayjg has a perfect memory and can testify that PR has never made, even once, an edit that is not propaganda.</BR>
	(3.b)A technicality allows Jayjg to raise a specious impression that PR is guilty of sockpuppetry. It is nothing more than that, a play on words, used for the subliminal effect 'sockpuppetry' has on administrators. Wink,wink, nudge,nudge</BR>
	(3.c)Here we finally have contemporary evidence from the last week. ] violation against "the likes of ]". Jay jigs up the following tremendously damning smoking gun from PR's recent edit.
	::<blockquote>'Shahak did less to Judaism (in far more measured terms) than the likes of ] do to Islam. Compare the two for reliability - Hirsi Ali is known to have lied (she's admitted it publicly) about what Islam did to her life, re-inventing great portions of it even including her name and date of birth. (That was in order to leave the perfectly safe Germany and settle in Holland). She's either chucked up or mysteriously distanced herself from the plum think-tank job she landed in Washington .... safer back in Eurabia than Washington? Whereas Shahak is more respectable in every way, surviving Belsen (1943 aged 10), going to Palestine, serving in an elite regiment of the IDF. He went on to become a professor of chemistry at Hebrew University. I think it's only in 1967 he came to question his faith. Nishidani proves again (above) that Shahak's criticisms of his religion (while hard hitting) bear no resemblance to those of Hirsi Ali, they're veritable models of reason in comparison. Now compare the two for the tone of our treatment - we quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali enthusiastically (as do all sorts of blatant Islamophobes and racists) seemingly delighted to have her say of Islam "Violence is inherent in Islam, it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder". In Shahak's case, we ignore the points he has to make, pour scorn on his testimony, and quote his critics saying "world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him". Then we further defame Shahak because his words were picked up by racists - even though we know it's completely irrelevant. Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel is also extensively quoted by the antisemitic - so? It's almost as if we're writing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)</blockquote>
	So, what is the enormous crime by wiki criteria in this first piece of evidence for PR’s horribly recalcitrant propagandistic editing?
	Jayjg, read the whole Shahak page and archives, has it in for Shahak. Shahak was a ] ], a Holocaust survivor and secular critic of the ultra-orthodox threat to the development of Israel as a modern democracy. You cannot even begin to understand his critique unless you are familiar with Popper's 2 volume masterpiece, 'The Open Society and its Enemies' and Hadas's theories about Platonic influence via Hellenism on certain currents of rabbinical thinking. He wrote several books on the oddities of rabbinical halakhic and doctrinal traditions. Because he translated and divulgated extensive swathes of opinion from rabbinical sources that will strike most secular minds as bizarre, in a state where Judaic religious identity is still not disentangled from Israeli Jewish identity, Shahak came in for a huge amount of flak. Jayjg has supported cramming the page with poor sources that smear, insinuate and slander the man. Many, myself included, have given up and allowed the mess to stand as a monument to the kind of editing Jayjg rides shotguhn over, while he jumps at people like PR for not respecting Wiki ideals, and retailing 'propaganda'.</BR>
	PR simply said that proIsraeli I/P editors are enamoured of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says of Islam, yet hate what Shahak says of Orthodox rabbinical thought. Both often say the same thing, that these respective religions shackle human liberty with the queerest of mystical theories. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is hailed as a heroic figure because her enemy is Islam. Shahak is despised as a Jewish antisemite because his enemy was a mode of rabbinical doctrine and thinking he thought tyrannical and totalitarian. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is known to have lied (PR says) and this does not alter the esteem in which she is held. Shahak is said by his bitter enemies to have lied, and this is showcased on his page. The point PR makes is the point made with Irving. I.e., pro-Israeli editors get on their high horses when Israel or Judaism is attacked, in this case by a Jewish critic, and allow the page to carry a large amount of preposterous insinuations from unreliable sources, whereas figures like Hirsi Ayaan Ali critical of Islam (Israel’s putative enemy) are left untouched, when not hailed for their critical boldness in taking on religious obscurantists. To entertain both positions is hypocritical, the duplicity of double standards is disturbing among editors of I/P articles, because one set of criteria is used with regard to Israel, another set used with regard to Israel’s putative enemies or antagonists, even when the situations in both cases are strikingly analogous. PR is thus vigorously deploring nationalist bias in I/P articles. Jayjg thinks this, apparently, deplorable, as deplorable as a man like Shahak, whom the Council of Foreign relations in Washington thought highly enough to consult with regularly over the 1990s. This is, finally, an analogy, of considerable merit, made on a talk page to illustrate what is wrong with Jayjg's editing, and not a violation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's biography.</BR>
	(3.d)'a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard'
	Again as before the following comment occurs on a Talk Page (] Israel). The contested remark is:-</BR>
	::<blockquote> Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His contains such gems as ''MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace."'' He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)</BR>
	Well? Bard is not a reliable source. The remark he is cited as making is a nonsense, since every Israeli government (bar Netanyahu’s perhaps) has, in its negotiations, allowed that there is a problem with settlements, and every world body consulted thinks so too, since they are not on land legally belonging to the state of Israel. With comments like that, one can only reply: ‘Non c’è trippa per gatti’. PR’s remark is innocuous, and a correct call to boot. It is not a BLP violation of Mitchell Bard to say, on a talk page where his irrelevant views are pushed, that he is a ‘serious propagandist’ who denies what Israeli negotiators admit to be the truth, i.e. that settlements are the central issue of contention, and an obstacle to be overcome, in peacetalks. Talk pages are full of such comment, whenever bad sources from second raters in the commentariat are being pushed in.</BR>
	(3.e)'some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor'</BR>
	(3.e.i) refers to a long discussion agreeing with another poster, on technical questions of branding people ‘deniers’ of genocide. It concludes:-</BR>
	::<blockquote>Lastly, there are other examples which must look perilously close to denial - it's difficult to imagine that in this republished 1962 leaflet (?) are taken very seriously by anyone who know anything of this case. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
	(3.e.ii)Interacting with ] on his talk page, PR mentions ]:-</BR>
	::<blockquote> Hi Relata - I came across from ]'s web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed . From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked , much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)</BR>
	So, what’s the ruckus about this, where's the huge violation of wiki policies involved here. A note on Paul Bopgdanor asking for a second opinion. Bogdanor is a hack writer, without any competence on Kastner, or anything else to do with I/P articles (in Jayjg’s own severe standards on WP:RS) and PR asked for advice to confirm her own reasonable impressions. Those who track and sort out who’s saying what to whom on I/P articles have clipped this out as damning evidence, of what? That PR, like a large part of the serious commentariat, thinks anything Bogdanor has to say can be safely ignored without drastic loss of wisdom?</BR>
	Jayjg protests at PR saying 'Everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated. He thinks, evidently that some people do not agree that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis. But '''Everybody does agree''', however, '''that Kastner collaborated with Nazis, since he did'''. And to say he didn’t would be to controvert a huge mass of contemporary documentation. It is not a claim, it is a matter of fact. In the second part of PR's remark to which Jayjg takes exception, we read:</BR>
	::<blockquote> '''almost everyone''' thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens'''.</blockquote>
	What Jayjg ignores, crucially, is that ''almost''. Ignoring that ''almost'' wilfully then allows him to make a Mountain out of a non-existent molehill, a fuss about the ostensible exception to PR's generalization. i.e. Anna Porter’s 'Kazstner's Train: The True Story of Rezsö Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust', which argues that Kastner was a hero. So? PR said '''almost''', not '''everyone'''. '''Almost''', Jayjg, in English usage here, means, contextually, almost everyone (except Anna Porter, for example). I won’t go into the Kastner case, and the large literature on that episode, as, I think, Relata refero redmarks, that it is a very complex case (the tradition behind sacrificing a large community to save a few however has been studied, not least by Israel Shahak, a taboo he and ] worried over all their lives, and for which many have never forgiven them for having voiced their malaise publicly) but I would suggest that Jayjg instead of whipping up froth and foam out of PR’s truism, meditate on the interview his link directs us to where Anna Porter is quoted as saying:</BR>
	::<blockquote>'He's the only Jewish Holocaust survivor who saved lives. There isn't anybody else really.'</blockquote>
	I.e. Porter who shouts her ignorance in this remark, is also saying that of the 2 to 4 million Jews who survived the Holocaust, no one, except Kastner, lifted a finger to save a fellow Jew. And you have the brashness to assert, after reading this extraordinary generalization, that PR makes remarks characterized by tendentious nonsense?</BR>
	(3.f)Jayjg concludes his shabby brief with the following ] judgement:'Tendentious nonsense . . characterizes the editor behind ] it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	To use that language on the strength/weakness of the ostensible evidence, rigged up out of a few lame diffs, against another wikipedian is probably a violation of ]. All I can see here is an attempt to finish unsettled old scores, a vendetta, personal dislike, and factitious material jerryrigged to waste another editor, whose faults, acknowledged by many, are venial, and certainly not conspicuous, in the record placed before us here. Nothing adduced here warrants such comments on PR's recent behaviour as both GHcool and Jayjg have attempted to document it. This is, therefore, a farce.
	But, in fine, ], examining this travesty of evidence, one can only sigh with a slight infraction of metrical proprieties, with ] (Serm. Lib,I, 1, 69-70), in parsing the intemperate language and characterisations of congenitially poor editing you have brandished here against PR: ''Quid derides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur''.] (]) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas. --] (]) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::But these topics are politically very sensitive and there are equally valid but completely different opinions in the reliable sources. Compare PR's behavior to your own behavior some time ago on the Global Warming page. In that case the reliable sources (i.e. the peer reviewed sources and not the unreliable blogs) are very clear, yet we have to put up with editors who refuse to recognize the basic facts. ]. ] (]) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::: gee, thanks. not only do i get a whole new editor casting aspersions on me, it's on a whole new topic to boot. thanks so much. --] (]) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::] :) ] (]) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Count Iblis, your insertion of irrelevancies and non sequitirs here, in order to throw aspersions at me, seems a bit uncivil and not completely appropriate here. We are trying to discuss specific topics here. (By the way, if your armada reference was meant to be humorous, I can take some wry humor here as well as anyone here, but it did not appear that way, and seemed like an unfriendly act. I don't mind some off-topic conversation, but it seemed like some sudden negative material unrelated to the topic at hand. if you are trying to strike a light note, I feel you should try to do so differently.) --] (]) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Ok, let me exlain this a bit better then. You wrote "Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas". My reply to you, based on your conduct on the GW page ] ] (]) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Your remarks ARE AD HOMINEM AND TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. I would appreciate it if you would please try to stck to the point. Your remarks have no relation to the topic under discussion. thanks. --] (]) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: Ok, let me stick to the point then. If you think it is ok. to invite editors from the "Conservatism in the US" page to come over to the Global Warming page, which is primarily about the science of Global Warming, not politics, and then defend that by saying "I guess our main difference is that I don't view this only as a science article, but as a societal/political topic as well.", then what is PR doing wrong when he brings the Palestinian POV in articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? ] (]) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Gosh, it sure is great to see how well-expressed you are...(sarcasm). your entire approach to this is completely counter-productive. you are beuing extremely contentious. ok, I have no desire to reply to anything which you have stated. are you trying to send the message that you disagree with my action? ok, you win, since I have no desire to reply to your questions which are phrased in a completely non-productive and contentious way.
	::::::::::you have completely ignored the issue here, and brought up concerns about my past actions in a way which is completely counter to any norms of productive discussions. I find your approach completely unhelpfu, and decline to reply. Ok, you win. Yay! --] (]) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::By the way, to answer your question, the two situations are NOT ANALOGOUS. So your points do not in any way refute the valid concerns which I raised. your method of discussing this is totally one-dimensional and contentious. thanks. --] (]) 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	===Further discussion===
	::::::I'd like to bring us back to the criteria for a community-wide or topic-ban. What are indeed the criteria? Cheating, and edit-warring, PR says. I'd have to agree with him/her that I don't see evidence to that effect. So, please, as someone who's only been here for a few months, could someone explain to me, with an emphasis on recent concerns, first, what the specific charges are here which merit permanent banning, and second, offer support. ] (]) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	Holy mother of pearl, that was long Nishidani. I'll try to be much briefer:
	# I actually do know a fair bit about Kastner and the allegations raised regarding him, having written most of the ] article and contributed significantly to the ] article. No, not "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated". Kastner negotiated with the Nazis, trying to make a deal to trade Allied goods for Jewish lives. Whether or not this negotiation ever had a chance of succeeding is a matter for debate amongst historians, and there are some writers who think that Kastner knew they had no chance, and was only in it for himself - Vrba and Gruenwald primary among them. However, that is certainly not the consensus among ''historians'', far from it. ] certainly does not agree, nor does ]. But if Nishidani thinks that "almost everyone" thinks that Kastner was a collaborator who betrayed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and that Porter's award-winning book is bunk, let him produce the many reliable historians who say so. And no, despite your citing ] as a reliable source on Kastner, I nevertheless do not consider him to be one.
	# Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mitchell Bard, and Paul Bogdanor are all ], and Misplaced Pages discussion regarding them is covered by the ] policy, regardless of your personal opinions regarding them.
	# PalestineRemembered claimed that his account was a "legitimate" SPA, used to edit I-P articles. Since he is now using the account to edit other articles, it is no longer a legitimate SPA, but instead, merely a second account, which in Misplaced Pages terminology, is called a "sockpuppet". It no longer possess the alleged "legitimacy" it once claimed.
	Finally, regarding your claim that "Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest", in the past month I have written these two articles: ], ], brought the following article I created to GA status: ], created three Did You Know articles, including ] and ], completely re-written and tripled the size of ] to save it from deletion, written ], ], ], ], and 34 stubs. Your powers of observation do not appear to be very good. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Jayjg, In regards to point 3, could you possibly point out where the evidence is that:
	:# PR uses multiple accounts; and
	:# simply having multiple accounts is considered sock-puppetry? My reading of ]'s lead suggests otherwise.
	:It seems a pretty big leap to go from "What used to be an SPA is now editing other areas of Misplaced Pages" to "The user is deceptively abusing sock-puppet accounts". Even if PR ''did'' have another account, I would see no problem, as long as never the twain shall meet.
	:-- ] ] 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::You are correct, I had always believed from his statement that he was an SPA editing only I-P related articles that he was declaring PalestineRemembered to be a secondary account, as per ], reason #1. I see now that it was an assumption on my part. Perhaps he can clarify. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Uh... he is (or was) a "single-purpose account", which is what we call people who show up only to promote their band, categorize railroads by state, or block bad usernames. It says nothing about having another account. --] 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I just stated that I now see it was merely an assumption on my part, based on my quite possibly erroneous inference that he was using the account for ], reason #1. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Short-version'''. Judging by the evidence so far, to file for a community ban on ANI without evidence that stands up to scrutiny looks like ] to me.
	:::'''Long-version'''. Reply to ] I'll answer in Hysteron-proteron sequence, for convenience.
	:::<blockquote>'(My) powers of observation do not appear to be very good' </blockquote>
	:::Perhaps. What I do have is a fair competence in construing sentences in a few languages to determine what they mean, and how, in a sequence of discursive exchanges, the logical content of the respective sentences flows. You make the same mistake above as you did with PR's comment on Kastner. I said, addressing you, 'every edit of yours '''I have observed''' over two years' . You now list many edits you have made which '''I haven't observed''', in order to disprove a generalisation made strictly in terms of my own experience. Since I don't track you, but merely note what you do on pages I edit, I restrict myself to that. So, as is, unfortunately, normal in low-key banter, there is little trace of logical coherence between what I stated, which remains true, and what you argue in a specious reply, which addresses something I never said. The hypothetical statement, which by your misprision, you attribute to me and then rebut, takes the form, 'Every edit you have made on Misplaced Pages, Jayjg, looks like a defence of a national/ethnic interest'. Since I never said this, your reply, while interesting, does not answer to what I said.
	:::I know a lot of people here hunt each other, check each other's logs, email around, etc. I don't. I make my calls strictly (if naturally subjectively) on the evidence of what I see. Permit me to add. That you enrich wiki with many contributions on Jewish topics is something you can justifiably be proud of. That your edits on anything regarding Palestinians overwhelmingly strike many others as bordering on a pretextual (i.e.wikilawyering) censoriousness that seriously damages the highest aim of this collaborative endeavour, (encyclopedicity) may equally yield a sense of self-satisfaction. It would be ungenerous to deny the justifiable pride with which you document your contributions to the Jewish side of wikipedia. It would be dishonest to hide one's feeling that the satisfactions of impoverishing otherwise good work on Palestinians are to be deplored. To illustrate (hmm.tracking me?), since ] makes films for Italian TV, and endlessly dominates talkshows here on Palestinian terrorism (is it a violation of BLP to say here that she never allows anyone to get a word in edgewise?), that edit I made months ago on her page, indicating that she lives in Gilo, on the West Bank, is pertinent. It simply allows the reader who may check, to know that Nirenstein happens to be, herself, a 'settler' on Palestinian territory. I see last night you have eliminated it, I can imagine with, let me be ironical, a mow of triumphant schadenfreude?. Nirenstein will thank you. People who know nothing of her background will now check wiki and not know that when she speaks of settlers, she has a conflict of interest. Good job.
	:::'''Kastner'''. Collaborate? Cooperate? In the first edition of his masterpiece, Raul Hilberg uses the words interchangeably. Later, he preferred 'cooperate', because, I presume 'cooperate' lacks certain wartime nuances associated with 'collaborate'. Substantively, however, ''c'est la même différence''.
	:::Your remarks on PR's sparse comments re Kastner make up (since they gather in Paul Bogdanor etc.) almost half of your comments, which were supposed to supply serious evidence. They are (a)immaterial to any brief on PR's putative violations of WP rules, except if one wishes to raise a comber's lather over ]. (b) You are contesting the '''veracity''' of a generalization made by PR on a talk page. That's within your rights, but on the relevant talk page. At least half of those editing pages I am familiar with do not seem to have any background knowledge of the subject, but simply take off from reading preexisting links on the page. That's why one needs extensive comments on Talk pages, such as, in this case, PR provided, esp. with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
	:::You will differ with PR on Kastner, as, in major key, ] differed with ] on these issues. To make a challengeable, historically questionable, generalization (were this the case, which is arguable) on a talk page does not constitute a violation of wiki rules. (Sir Martin, an extraordinary historian, is a generalist on this, and not pertinent, by the way). You ''did'' make a major error in construing ''almost everyone'' as ''everyone'', and in generalizing from a statement that syntactically allowed for the very exception you then adduced to rebut PR, you committed a serious oversight of construal and logic, which sunk your subsequent argument about Paul Bogdanor and Anna Porter. You now say, standing corrected, that even ''almost everyone'' is not true. Even were that so, nothing is altered. PR was entitled to make that judgement on a talk page.
	:::Therefore, though it is absolutely immaterial to the question under review, and should never have been raised in the first place, I'll respond to your remarks on Kastner. The point is indeterminable, since it depends on a subjective value judgement, how third parties view the decision of one Jew to save himself, his family and 1600 other Jews, in exchange for collaborating/cooperating with Nazis (because deemed inevitable) 450,000 other Jews to die unwittingly. A variation on ]. Jews who descended from those he and the ] saved, will thank him. Non-descendents of the 450,000 Jews (Jewish Communists and the poor were often the first to be sacrificed) are not around to express their aborted feelings. More than 1 in 40 or 50 would probably have survived had the Judenräte dropped their age-old 'Am Yisrael chai' outlook, and told everyone, rich and poor, affines and strangers in the Jewish communities alike, to scram, shoot back, refuse to make, let alone wear the yellow star, since they were to be murdered, instead of conning them about new prospects for emigration in the East. Kastner's choice bartered several thousand for half a million. Some think one should refuse to play god, if asked to do so by the scum under Satan's hegemony in a topsy-turvy world where hell rules paradise. Kastner's choice is understandable, to some, perhaps. But there is nothing heroic in it, as it appears Porter's book argues. Faced with this dilemma, ] blew out his brains. I wish he had not wasted the shot, and asked for a final interview with, and killed, ] instead. The result would have been the same, but had the likes of Kastner shot at the Eichmanns of this world, they would have set an heroic example for their communities, instead of deceiving the overwhelming majority to march in lockstep towards that 'elsewhere' the Kastners they trusted knew to be Auschwitz. It has been often argued by eruditely reasonable men that, as a consequence, in Israel, extreme overcompensation for that fatal error of compliance under conditions of Holocaust is what has shattered every prospect for a wholly uninvolved people, the Palestinians, in their struggle for statehood (yes, ]).
	:::As for Bard and Bogdanor, this is an encyclopedia that aspires to quality. Neither of them even nudges the midget's calypso bar for intelligent analysis of I/P issues. If PR saw efforts to use them on general articles, (s)he did well to protest, on Talk, at the use of factitious, blindly partisan sources. You are, rather exquisitely, hoist by your own petard here: since elsewhere you refuse to allow any citation from any academic, even of world-wide repute, on a topic he hasn't appropriate doctoral qualifications for, you cannot hold PR hostage over BLP for applying exactly the same criterion (which you yourself insist on) when PR notes someone pushing Bogdanor or Bard. You roast PR for dismissing quarter-baked minds in a tiresome commentariat on some pages, and, with what looks like a theatrical ''volte-fa(r)ce'' for bemused onlookers like myself, exclude first-rate minds (David Shulman, ] to cite just two examples) on others. You are culpable here of pushing ] to defend bad sources (on a talk page discussion), that favour Israel, while availing yourself of ], in the strictest imaginable definition, to keep eminently good sources from being harvested for other (Palestinian) articles. One should not, as here, use the wiki rulebook as a convenience tool, to be cherry-picked for strategic advantages, according to what you yourself want to see, or not see, on a page. PR's analogy of Shahak's disgraceful treatment, which you support, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was a very intelligent piece of talk commentary, ìlluminating for the way it brought out the scandalous partisan nature of ethnic-interest editing on I/P pages. People should not have the rulebook thrown at them when they make intelligent remarks. Wiki is not a democracy, but it ain't ]'s morocratic dystopia, with the intelligent comfortably enisled off the soma-doped mainland, either (so far). ] (]) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::<small>Re your comments to Avi further above and to Jayjg here: I suggest sticking to verifiable facts only and avoiding colourful language speculating on editors' motives or emotions. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.4em;">☺</span> ] (]) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)</small>
	::::Nishidani, I guess I should thank you for following up your previous 4,200 word post with a comparatively terse one of only 1,500 words. I'll also try to be even more brief that before.
	::::#"Co-operate" and "collaborate" are indeed different, and Kastner bargained to save 1 million Jews in return for Allied goods, not 1,600 Jews in return for 450,000. The claim that Kastner's true goal was the latter rather than the former was advanced by Vrba, an incredible and heroic figure, but one nonetheless wedded to views that most historians reject, including both Bauer ''and'' Hilberg; when confronted with the fact that his estimate of the number of Jews killed in Auschwitz was twice that of respected Holocaust historians, Vrba replied "Hilberg and Bauer don't know enough about the history of Auschwitz or the Einsatzgruppen." More to the point, PalestineRemembered's claim was demonstrably and obviously false, exaggerated soapboxing and hyperbole made solely for the purpose of demonizing Zionists, particularly those who had a hand in creating Israel. You have not "corrected" me in any way, but rather have been corrected yourself. There is no getting around these simple and irrefutable points, even if you post another 4,200 or even 42,000 more words.
	::::#] is serious policy, and it applies to all living people, including Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. One can certainly challenge their validity as sources for Misplaced Pages articles, but that does not mean PalestineRemembered or you can simply insult them. Stop defending PalestineRemembered's abuse of the policy, and stop abusing it yourself in defense of him.
	::::PalestineRemembered has now burned out how many of his mentors; three? four? This is not the fault of his mentors. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::In general you’re right, the problem is not with the mentors per se. Rather there are a host of other problems, mostly arising from the fact that mentorship has put PR under a level of scrutiny other I/P editors are not subjected to – indeed, a level of scrutiny under which, frankly, they would not fare any better than he has. This peculiar situation has been abused in several ways, but most egregiously by other editors funneling disinformation to PR’s mentors.--] (]) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::On the contrary, the egregious abuse here is on the part of PR's enablers, who, rather than firmly insisting he use reliable sources and make neutral edits, instead defend his every soapbox comment and indefensible action as part of some "disinformation" plot against him. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I may not be able to complete my participation here, if this drags on, because I have a computer with a cracked hard disk, and technicians are all on vacation. Every time I request a page, having jiggered my way into windows past numerous warning signs and software rejections, I must wait anything from minutes to an hour. This in case I fail to reply to further comments.
	::::::]. PR has been, in this case, 'burned', irrespective of whether mentors have been burned out or not (There is more than anecdotal evidence that some of her editors have been pestered by complaints aimed at unsettling the relationship). It appears she has been ''burnt'' rather maliciously. Ryan's frustration is the only evidence I respect, but I note that, apparently, prior to his making his complaint on ANI, you had plastered some protests about PR on his page. The only evidence for malefaction, infringement of wiki rules we have came from GHcool's exercise in fossicking in the archives for dead and buried (and sanctioned) behaviour, and what you then came in to supply. What you supplied has been systematically shown to be factitious.
	::::::(a) You now admit the sockpuppetry gambit reflects a misunderstanding on your part. Thus it must be discarded.
	::::::(b) You complained about infringements of ] re ], ], Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and PR's remark on Kastner's posthumous reputation.
	::::::(b.1) I showed that your complaint about Pr's dismissal of Paul Bogdanor and Mitchell Bard is improper. Neither is qualified to comment on I/P articles according to the restrictive reading you use, on occasion, of ]. PR's dismissal of them as RS is perfectly consonant with your dismissal, elsewhere of Ian Lustick and David Shulman as reliable sources. Your approach to wiki rules is incoherent, not PR's. We are asked, optimally, to edit articles using sources of the highest quality, and avail ourselves of screeds written by partisan panjandrums (William Safire's words) from the lower ''gironi'' of the commentariat.
	::::::(b.2)], you argue, was described by PR in a way that violates ]. You take exception to the fact that PR noted AHA admits to having lied about her past. In saying this on a talk page, she is violating, in your view ], and thus must be sanctioned with a permanent community ban. This 'piece of evidence' is absurd to the point of outrageousness. This is what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes:-
	:::::::<blockquote>'Once in the Netherlands, she requested political asylum and received a residence permit. It is not known on what grounds she received political asylum, though '''she has admitted that she had lied by devising a false story''' about having to flee Mogadishu . .'</blockquote>
	::::::In other words, you, ], are requesting that PR receive a lifetime ban on wiki (I/P) articles for, among other things, having quoted in paraphrase on the ] talk page, what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali says. Your imputation to PR of a gross violation of ] consists, unbelievably, of evidence which shows PR simply paraphrased what a wiki page dedicated to that woman records. ''Bref''. PR is to be eternally exiled because she cited a documented fact registered on a consensually edited wiki biographical page. What's your game here? What's all this about violations of ] from someone whose editing on the Israel Shahak page, a distinguished Jew, consistently supports the retention of frivolous gossip by many kibitzers without his talmudic learning and philosophical acumen, that trashes and slanders his memory. Oh yes, Shahak's dead, so anything can be said, and he was a secular critic of a certain politically-potent vein in messianic Judaism.
	::::::As to Kastner, it is, I repeat immaterial. The only difference here, is that you dislike PR (and my) views of Kastner. Twice you misread our remarks, and made a huge to-do out of this misprision. So be it. You seem to be endeavouring to get a person you dislike banned because of a reasonable judgement that person made on a talk page, one shared by many respectable scholars, about a controversial figure.
	::::::All I have seen in this long complaint against PR is ]. Over the past two years, PR has had registered against him/her numerous complaints, some serious, several frivolous, and, on my side of the border is considered to be a 'scalp' the 'opposition' seems to regard as worth taking, not because PR's actual editing is deplored (what pages has PR's editing despoiled?). But because of his/her attitude. PR has suffered several suspensions (I four, for that matter, many arising, coolly viewed, from exasperation at poor (tagteam)editing and harassment). Outside editors and admins, reviewing the log at speed get a poor impression, and, now that we have a fresh complaint, scour the names of the plaintiffs (old hands) rapidly check the diffs, and miss virtually all of the subtextual and contextual play. If I had to sum up what has occurred in one word, it is barratry.
	::::::With Avi, and PR, I have discussed the larger problem in depth quietly on our respective pages, with none of the veiled politeness or wikilawyering that runs through this page. Though Avi will not agree with me that what we have here is barratry, since his eye is focused on what is, admittedly, PR's exasperation, and the influence of that exasperation on his/her functional productivity on I/P articles, and I agree with him that PR is exasperated (only I tend to sympathize with the reasons for that exasperation), we have asked PR to consider a rest period, to withdraw voluntarily for a few months. PR, (though Avi and I disagree on this) appears to be innocent of anything charged against him/her here, has agreed to this. I.e. though innocent of the charges made against him/her, PR has taken advice from two editors, one with high standing on both sides (Avi) and my own disreputable self. I think that acceptance of advice she has received from both sides, a painful thing to do under the circumstances, proof of PR's integrity and respect for the community, and that we should, at this point, simply lay off arguing with each other, and let PR, Avi, G-Dett, and administrators etc., mull either this, or as Avi has with exemplary generosity offered, vet the possibility of a fifth mentorship, where he has offered to assist. I personally think PR should lay off for 2 months, and then come back to ask, preferably Avi, and some other admin, to assist his/her editing, and to restrict the focus of editing to one or two pages at a time.
	::::::This is no longer a matter of 'evidence': it is a matter of finding a way to improve the conditions under which PR might return to editing I/P articles, with a more refined awareness of what Pr should learn to avoid in order that excuses for barratry or, alternatively, reasons for serious complaint as in the past, arise in the future.] (]) 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I must commend you, Nishidani, managing to produce yet another 1200 word tome, and with a cracked hard disk! In response:
	:::::::#Regarding the sockpuppeting, in my experience the ''only'' time people self-declare an account to be a SPA is when they have another account for editing in other areas. PR stated his account was an SPA, and I assumed that it was also an admission that PR was a second account, but he did not state his account was an second account. That is all we know. And there was no "gambit", nor any "barratry"; if you must write at such length, at least have the courtesy to avoid this kind of hyperbole.
	:::::::#You keep missing, or ignoring, the point about Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. I'll repeat it; they are ], and one therefore cannot insert unsourced or poorly sourced material about them ''anywhere'' on Misplaced Pages, including Talk: pages. ''That'' is the only relevant point here. And that applies to calling them "quarter-wits" too.
	:::::::#Since you keep bringing up Shahak, rather than comparing his article to Ali's, a more apt comparison would be of Shahak's writings on Judaism to ]'s on Islam.
	:::::::#You claim that "prior to making his complaint on ANI, had plastered some protests about PR on his page." I did indeed make '''one''' comment about PR on Ryan's Talk: page, in '''May''', after PR was blocked for ''again'' adding material sourced to jewsagainstzionism.com, which PR still (after many, many months, and many explanations) insists is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards - a personal website run by an anonymous religious extremist, whose only contact is a Post Office box. You do go on about reliable sources, but this absurdity somehow escapes your comment. Also notable is your rather obviously inaccurate description of my actions. If someone had so inaccurately described PR's actions as you described mine, you would no doubt be instantly writing 5,000 word essays in his defense; the contrast is startling.
	:::::::#I did not develop a lengthy case against PR, but merely made a brief comment pointing out some recent and troubling Talk page comments of his - comments which are still quite troubling, regardless of your lengthy, but unsuccessful, attempts to defend the indefensible. However, there are plenty more edits to choose from, if one were to want to; for example, his fairly recent edit-warring on behalf of an IP editor to insert this into the ] article. A google search finds it mentioned only on these two websites: - if it were an actual quote, it would have been prominently displayed on hundreds, perhaps even some reliable ones. Not only did PR re-insert the "quote", but he then petitioned his mentor, Ryan, declaring its removal to be "vandalism" even though he stated the quote "may or may not be true", and asked to be released from his I-P editing restrictions so he could revert it in again. '''That''' is the kind of action that rapidly burns out a mentor.
	::::::: ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	===Review of evidence too long, but did read===
	]. The argument that PR has done nothing - at least nothing mentioned by his "opponents" - worthy of a ban is pretty persuasive. The problem is that everyone involved has a strong opinion, and it may be hard to avoid having one after reading enough to contribute to the topic area.
	As he was mentioned above, I read about ]. It's an interesting story, and I can honestly say that I cannot judge him, at least based on what's presented in the article. Whether it's wrong to sacrifice many to save some is a very complicated moral question. But I also found that the article concentrates too much on that moral question and other unanswerable questions and not enough on what he actually did (or what people say he did), and that hurts its quality. For instance, the "assassination" section contains this ] sentence: "But the idea that the killing was a government cover-up has been described as "absolute nonsense" because the head of the intelligence service was a close personal friend of Kastner."
	What's really needed is a '''committee''' of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation to get involved, and possibly '''arbitrarily''' make decisions to improve the quality of the articles. Unfortunately, we don't have something like that, and I really have no suggestions. --] 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::NE2's notion of a "committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation" is a good idea on its face, but it won't work in this situation. There are literally two mutually exclusive bodies of "truth" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with its own library of "reliable sources," etc. Any effort at getting to the bottom of things will inevitably convince the subscribers to one or the other perspective that the party making an objective assessment of the facts has become compromised, whether it has or hasn't. ] (]) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:'''PalestineRemembered comments''' Thankyou for the careful attention you've paid to the evidence and details of this case, the project would benefit hugely if others were doing the same.
	:Regarding "a Committee", unfortunately, WP is currently structured on no interference with "content disputes". However, all is not lost, because each of the discussions above demonstrates that editors care passionately about "cheating" (even if there is wild disagreement over what it covers and the word itself is very much frowned upon). The project has proved that it can (sometimes) deal with at least one form of cheating, abusive sock-puppetry (unfortunately, its record is less than perfect even there).
	:My opinion is that the project needs to take cheating much more seriously - the problem is so serious that even declaring one's own integrity () is the very must unpopular thing one can do. It leads straight to calls for total muzzling () even from those who are not personally implicated in this lying and cheating and covering-up. Well, I say there is no element of cheating in that example - a call for the most severe sanctions possible on an editor clearly being witch-hunted would turn the stomach of at least some people. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::PR. We are not here to argue for our respective integrity, however embattled in talk skirmishes. We are here (I was here) specifically to improve articles. I/P articles are, notoriously, among the hardest to edit. Precisely for this reason, to edit fruitfully, one must simply decide, whatever the nonsense one may observe on the opposed side (from whichever perspective) to plug away stoically, master one's natural sensitivities, and look to the articles' wellbeing. I have done my best to show that, in this instance, there is no substance to the evidence supporting calls for a community ban. But I have not mentioned that I have considerable regard for Ryan, and for several other editors and admins in here who, though they straddle the frontier, do appear to feel that when someone has his or her fourth mentor throw in the towel with exasperation, that person should pause to reflect instead of sitting down to watch the outcome of a spectacle and feeling vindicated, and then rushing to evoke words like 'lying' 'cheating', 'cover-up' 'muzzling' etc. I think at this point that, while I, for one, regard you as wholly cleared (others will disagree) of the charge made, I think you have not reflected sufficiently on the aims of wikipedia, an encyclopedia which requires editors to sacrifice their time in order to write articles, and avoid like the plague abetting the inevitable poisoning of the well caused by insinuation.] (]) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Avraham's comments to PR''' As regards your characterizations of my initial comments as "total muzzling," please remain intellectually honest and take into account both my of what i believe would be appropriate, as well as with Nishdani. What is both slightly humorous, as well as sad, is that for the past year, I may have been one of your most vocal defenders from the non-Palestinian camp. You are obviously intelligent and well-read; it makes it all the more so disappointing when you seem to "skirt" the line of civility, or in this case, almost, but not quite, misrepresent my current opinions on the matter through selective quotation. Perhaps you did not notice my changing my stance; understood. But when making "charged" statments, be it about users or about issues, the onus is on the statement maker to ensure that the statements remain accurate. The old saw of "extreme statements need extreme sources" applies everywhere, not just places like the JewsagainstZionism sourcing issues.
	:::PR, you are usually not guilty of gross trolling or open name-calling. However, for better or for worse, you have exhibited an editing style and behavior that has rubbed many people the wrong way; has exhausted the patience or ability of a number of mentors, and has you in the community spotlight on a regular basis. As I in the past, were you to channel your energy, efforts, and ability away from ideologically-charged editing and into more neutral editing, you would be a very valuable editor. But now, your efforts are wasted in the constant frictional battles that arise, and your editing style does not beget you many supporters outside of your ideological camp. I continue to maintain that a break from P/I articles for, let's say six months, wherein you focus your abilities elsewhere, and then a return to these articles, under guidance, where you can show how you work '''with''' ''all'' other editors to reach acceptable compromises and consensus, will stand ALL of us in good stead for the long term. Trying to apply your ability to craft intelligent phraseology to ''minimize'' ideologically charged issues as opposed to trying to find the most extreme cases to magnify the issues would be my suggestion. -- ] (]) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::I am not going to opine on the specific situation, which people who have read all the evidence have done above. (Though as an uppity woman who sympathizes with uppity palestinians who also get spanked for being uppity, I may have my little prejudices.) Anyway, it just occurs to me from a comment about the intractable differences between the two sides that perhaps each disputed article (or section) should just have separate sections of approximately equal lengths/# of footnotes with whatever WP:RS info people wanted to enter and some third neutral parties would decide what is or isn't WP:RS. Just a crazy thought!! ''PS: If only administrators are supposed to post here, the top of page should make that clearer. Not sure now.'' Carol Moore 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)] ]
	:::::Carol, anyone may post here. The purpose is to have a centralized area to bring items to administrators, but anyone may do so, as well as comment on the proceedings. Personally, I disagree with your suggestion, as that starts us down the slippery slope of having ideologically-based articles and not ] articles. We ares supposed to be en encyclopedia, not a debating forum. However necessary the latter may be, there is a place for it in life and on the internet; however, wikipedia is not supposed to be that place. Thank you. -- ] (]) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Avi (and others): Nixeagle suggests above an RfC about PR. Or, should another mentor step forward to replace Ryan? Or, if mentorship is dropped, how should the divisive situation be handled? Thanks. ] | ] 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::An RFC would be asking for trouble/drama. And well you are not going to get another mentor. PR's opponents will simply see any mentor as a weapon to use against PR or if the mentor does not allow themselves to be used as such as an obsticle that has to be removed. Your best bet for keeping the situation quiet for a bit would be to topic ban all sides but you would need an arbcom ruleing for that.] 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::My time is spread extremely thinly as it is, so I do not know how much it would help, but I will extend the same offer to you, PR, as I have with others, in that I would be willing to act as a co-mentor. What this entailed in the past was that communication was copied to both mentors simultaneously, with both mentors having the ability to act independantly, if necessary. Perhaps this would assuage some of your concerns, Geni, as I am naturally ideologically disposed in a manner different than PR, I am less likely to be "used as a weapon" by any opposition. A situation similar to the method Isarig's mentorship was handled may be appropriate. Two mentors (Fayssal and I), whose backgrounds were sufficiently different as to neutralize perceptions of impropriety, who had demonstrated the ability to work together in an atmosphere of respect, and who (hopefully) were viewed by the community as being able to act impartially notwithstanding background and upbringing, may allow all participants to come away as best as possible from the situation. The editor receiving the guidance could feel that s/he was not forcibly placed with someone with whom they did not feel understood them, and the other project members could not claim that the mentor would be too likely to overlook any issues due to too much similarity. Unfortunately, in Isarig's case, the mentorship was unsuccessful, and he has left the project. If there is someone else willing to take the primary role in attempting a fifth go-round with you, PR, who would be willing to work with me and work out some primary guidelines, perhaps that may be an all-round acceptable solution. If I personally am unacceptable to you, PR, perhaps another willing volunteer may be found. And if the joint mentorship is unsatisfactory to you, you are no worse off than you are now. -- ] (]) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::How about a pair comprising a relatively "centrist/moderate" involved admin and a completely uninvolved admin? An uninvolved mentor is likely to give more objective advice, but an involved admin will understand the context better. -- ] ] 06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::That is also a fine idea, and I am actually involved in another mentorship now of that form as well (I'm the centrist in the pair, I guess). The idea is not to penalize, but to prevent further disruption to the project. -- ] (]) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	This AN/I case, the latest of a long series of cases against PR, is seemingly headed in the direction of no action, or possibly worse - relaxing PR’s editing restrictions from mandated mentorship, to a voluntary one, in which PR gets to pick his own comfy-cozy “mentor”.
	I have already commented on the case, but I’d like to offer an additional insight, which may act as a red flag for those commentators who have recently been swayed to oppose any sort of sanction. Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of ]. The source in question is ‘Culture Wars”, a private, partisan magazine dedicated to the dissemination of a rather extreme brand of Catholic fundamentalism. It has been described by one of its ex-editors as a magazine that is ‘increasingly becoming a journal of psycho-sexual conspiracy theory.” It’s editor, one E. Michael Jones , has been described as someone who “runs through all the usual anti-Semitic canards -- the ideas that "Jewish media elites" run the country, that Jews are "major players" in pornography, and that Jews are behind Masonry and the French Revolution -- but that's only the start”. He is also a man who believes that “every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish.” The article in question, written by a rather obscure Professor of French Literature from Georgia State University, describes Weisel as ‘a con man’. The author makes an ideology of his refusal to use the word “Holocaust”, preferring, instead the euphemistic “Jewish Ordeal of World War II” (while at the same time having no compunction describing actions of the Jewish Irgun as “extermination of innocent Arabs”). Echoing the aforementioned anti-Semitic canard espoused by Jones, the author also complains that ‘Hardly a day goes by without the Judeo-corporate media producing an article, report, TV show or movie of some kind on the subject of the Holocaust and the dubious “lessons” we are supposed to draw from it”.
	PR’s verdict on this source? Why, it’s “relatively calm and fact-orientated (and is apparently stacked with references).”
	Don’t say you weren’t warned when this pops up at the next AN/I. I give it about 2 weeks. ] (]) 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Yep, both author and editor of Culture Wars sound like charlatans.
	:Let’s briefly note what Canadian Monkey omitted from his summary:
	:# PR’s “verdict” on the source in question begins with misgivings about how “these ethno-identifying tracts always make me uncomfortable,” and ends with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier.
	:# <s>PR did not insert the source into the article in question or even on its talk page; rather, he tentatively asked his defender Nishidani what he thought about it on his own user talk page.</s>
	:This was just hours ago. Sit tight for Nishidani to say – in his inimitably labyrinthine way – “No, PR, this nutjob doesn’t look like a good source. Whatever legitimate material may be in this article will surely be found in the work of serious and reputable critics of Weisel, such as Norman Finkelstein.” That, at any rate, will be the lightbulb at the center of whatever verbal chandelier Nishidani is currently building.
	:::Dearest G-Dett, Wiesel-PR-Nishidani exactly, except I simply did not think it worth commenting on. For once I thought, silence would speak volumes. I think, generally, you've seized the bolt (as in stuffing) by the nuts(as per myself), and we get to the real gist of this AN/1, something I think all parties on all sides would underwrite. Were I ever to return to editing (improbable) could I be assigned you as my mentor? You may not have hands-on experience in decongesting wind-bags, but your paring abilities on the conceptual lathe surpass those of ], and would stand me in good stead were I to resume carpentering on the ramshackle ] ] out of which I jerryrig my contributions. Affectionately ] (]) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::For the record, I like your verbal chandeleirs (all the more so after the nod to Frances Yates and Mervyn Peake) and wouldn't dream of dismantling them. Also, I do think if the PR-mentorship malarkey is to continue you'd be the man for the job.--] (]) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:If my prediction holds, this will be evidence in support of “cozy-comfy” mentorship of the kind Nishidani could provide.
	:Would it be too much to ask of editors calling for PR’s banning that they be thorough, circumspect, and forthcoming about their evidence?
	:For my part, if I were to find Jayjg asking if some scurrilous nonsense he found on FrontPageMagazine would be appropriate for the article on ], and a fellow pro-Israel editor responded “No, Jay, it really wouldn’t” – I would do cartwheels of joy and award barnstars to both boys.
	:CM is right about one thing: this will almost certainly be dragged up in whatever stupid banning discussion is in store for us two weeks from now.--] (]) 02:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Unsurprisingly, G-Dett has missed my point completely, and topped it off with some misrepresentations. PR did not end his post “with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier.” – but rather with the claim that since he was concerned that the author is “one of the Holocaust Deniers we'll have rammed down our throats” (note the eloquent phrasing of the concern – not that the man might turn out to be a Holocaust denier, but that he might (“horror!”) be rammed down the throats of those who choose to quote him) - '''he’s checked''', and concluded that he’s the "professor of French at Georgia State University in Atlanta" that the article says he is”. So much for PR’s famed research skills, which are constantly bandied about by his supporters. And so much for G-Dett’s shabby attempts at discrediting my evidence – which, of course, included a link to PR’s entire missive, so that people can judge for themselves about it’s nature.
	:::But as I wrote above, this is missing the point. The point is not that this was posted at PR’s Talkpage rather than in Weisel's bio or that article’s Talk page. And indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nishandi did counsel PR that is not the “calm and fact-orientated” source he imagines it to be. The point is that after editing Misplaced Pages for nearly two years, after being mentored by no less than 4 different individuals, and after being repeatedly cautioned about BLP violations and the need for high quality sources, this highly intelligent editor who possesses great research skills apparently still can’t tell a virulent hate site from a scholarly source, can't differentiate between a BLP-violating screed and a “calm and fact-orientated” neutral presentation, or identify a “charlatan” as G-Dett mildly put it (other sources have described the same as a “hard-line anti-Semite”) from a respectable academic. ] (]) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::CM, the point as I see it is that PR clearly expressed his misgivings about the source, while wondering if there might be something factually salvageable from the article. You cropped out the misgivings, extracting his one positive phrase and presenting it as his "verdict," <s>and neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page, not inserting or justifying on an actual article page.</s> Yes, you provided a blue link. These frequently go unclicked, and in the case of charges against PR it appears to be a virtually universal wiki-custom to ignore the evidence and go with the allegation. See the ''very first post'' in this entire banning thread, by PR's ''current mentor'', for a striking example of this.
	::::I did not choose "charlatan" as a euphemism, but on the contrary precisely because of its resonance in a dispute about sources. The source in question indeed appears to be a "hard-line anti-Semite," but the trouble with that phrase is that for literate people it has lost much of its meaning after widespread application to ], ], ], ], ], and others, by hacks, propagandists, and charlatans.
	::::Once again, there are a great many regular editors of I-P pages, many of them in good standing and with admin privileges, who do not have a good sense of what makes a source reliable and encyclopedic. PR does not stand out in this regard. He does stand out in that he has a healthy sense of self-doubt, tends to ask for advice and to follow it, and does not resort to endless wikilawyering and dispute-resolution stall tactics when his bad ideas are cogently rejected.--] (]) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::G-Dett, I do not intent do get into a blow-by-blow argument over this with you, as I believe the evidence speaks for itself. Anyone can read what PR actually wrote, using the link I gave, and see if he had “misgivings about the source” or if he pronounced it a “calm and fact-orientated” one, as I claim. I will correct one misrepresentation, though, because you have now repeated it twice: I made it clear that PR was asking a presumed mentor for advice on the suitability of this source. Reread what I wrote:” Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of Elie Weisel”. I will assume that your repeated false claims that I “neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page” are based on careless reading - rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but ask that you not repeat it again, and consider striking out these claims. The main point still stands: what you and I correctly identify as something coming from a "hard-line anti-Semite’ source, PR, master of research that he is, can’t see, despite having been repeatedly cautioned about his sources.
	:::::As an addendum, I think it is instructive to look at some further PR contributions related to this AN case. Recall that PR had been offered an olive branch of sorts by Avi, one of the most patient and accommodating admins who have commented here, including a suggestion that no further sanctions be imposed, and that PR get to choose his next mentor . PR responded very negatively to the suggestion, and treated Avi with incivility, as several editors noted and as even he concedes.
	:::::All of this is perfectly in-line with PR’s known editing style and is not surprising in the least. What is quite interesting is the rationale he has given for this behavior – which is, that he was under the (mistaken) impression that he had once been engaged in a content dispute with Avi - and that Avi had persuaded him to compromise. One really has to read this a couple of times to believe it: In a cooperative project such as Misplaced Pages, built on notions of consensus and compromise, the fact that he had been persuaded to compromise was in his mind legitimate grounds for bearing grudge against the editor with whom he had compromised, to the point of uncivil treatment a year later. Is this the kind of editor we want on the project? ] (]) 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::As far as I can tell, FrontPageMagazine is not used as a source for the ] article. By the way, could you please point out the last time I used FrontPageMagazine as a source? It's entirely possible I used it as a source in my early editing days, when sourcing standards were considerably more liberal than they are now (and I was far less experienced), but I can't recall using it in the past couple of years. Speaking of "scurrilous nonsense", what do you think of ? And by the way, if you want to describe me as a "pro-policy" editor, feel free to do so, but don't use any other description, and don't describe me again as inserting "scurrilous nonsense" into articles, thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::To refresh you memory, Jay: you have used FrontPageMagazine as a source also in the last two years: . Regards, ] (]) 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::For further refreshment, where you add scurrilous nonsense from an interview in FrontPageMagazine about how ] "was a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism." In the same edit, you add some other guilt-by-associations slurs ("David Duke mourned Shahak," etc.), sourced to the inestimable Paul Bogdanor. And where you describe all this scurrilous nonsense as "well and reliably enough sourced." Oh, and where you source material about Shahak's "fabricating incidents, "]", distorting the normative meaning of Jewish texts, and misrepresenting Jewish belief and law" to an unpublished writer, who in between time spent on Usenet threads and writing entries for Urban Dictionary (look up "k0nsl") typed an online essay in the hopes of winning a $1000 reward offered for material discrediting Shahak. Don't know if he won the bounty, but he's still in the Shahak article, even though the link to his self-published essay is dead.--] (]) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::'''PR notes:''' I have another example of ] repeatedly using FPM within the last 2 years. I have a big list of questions for him over his version of policy generally and wholesale reverts he's made of mine in particular. However, I also know that any word from me will be used as a platform to attack me in ludicrous and often completely false ways.
	::So I'll restrict myself to asking - how long before the project deals properly with articles concerning the I-P conflict? How long before internal critics of Israel such as Shahak are treated properly? Is there anyone who thinks I'm even a small part of this problem? How long can we ignore the real elephants in the room? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	For what it may be worth, the following may be relevant to this discussion:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	-- ] (]) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	===Alternative proposal===
	Two observations. (1) There is no consensus for the proposed topic ban on PR. (2) The current mentor has expressed a strong lack of confidence in PR, as have some other folks who are moderately uninvolved in I-P issues. Unlike the last AN/I, it looks like a new mentoring team has not jumped in to volunteer. Even if you disagree with these obsevations, '''we need to figure out a course of action.''' It's been suggested that we do an RFC/U or go to another ArbCom case. However, those would both be a drama and a drain. (As a fairly neutral player, I was thinking about proposing the RFC/U for the sake of moving the deliberations forward. But the recent Elonka RFC makes me wonder whether the RFC is such a helpful mechanism.)
	Perhaps we can figure out a compromise proposal -- something acceptable to PR and his supporters, yet also meaningful to PR's critics. For instance, what if PR's editing was restricted, not banned? Here's a proposal but we could certainly entertain other versions until we find the right formulation.
	'''Proposed''': PR would be allowed to continue editing in I-P topic area, but PR would be restricted to 6 articles over the next 30 days. Each article would be subject to the discretionary sanctions for I-P articles, so PR would be subject to potentially rigorous admin oversight. Hopefully, 2 fairly uninvolved people (e.g., Avi) would volunteer as mentors. At the end 30 days, the mentors (at their sole discretion) could reduce or increase the number of articles by, say, 3. Repeat every 30 days for 180 days. By then, PR would be editing between zero and 21 articles.
	'''Details''': If need be, the mentors need not be the ones who decide about the number of articles. It could be done by a committee of 2-3 fairly uninvolved people. (Personally, I could volunteer for such a role.) Also, PR should get to choose the articles within his orbit, or nominate them pending approval by the mentors/committee. Also, if this arrangement needs to be justified under WP policy, it can be considered a discretionary sanction under the I-P ruling.
	Thanks for hearing me out and assuming my good faith. Friendly amendments are welcome. ] | ] 04:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Note of concern:''' Wouldn't this give justification both for "]" to harass PalestineRemembered on the limited articles he will choose to partake in and also for his supporters to ] in response? It's an interesting suggestion though and one that PalestineRemembered should seriously consider. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Question''': Please excuse my ignorance, but can you explain in simple terms why you feel this is a suitable compromise, HG? Thanks. By the way, I do not have enough experience with PR to be a supporter or detractor, however, I am very concerned about any precedents this might set. We should all, not just PR, consider the possible ramifications of such a precedent, for all of us. What are the potentially productive and damaging future implications of such a move beyond the scope of this particular conflict? ] (]) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''': I've thought it over a bit and should add that it is highly concerning to see that the charges against PR have been largely ruled inadequate, and in the meantime other editors with worse track-records are somehow escaping this kind of censure. This editor, regardkess ofhis/her abrasive politics, should probably just be given the opportunity to let us know that s/he will voluntarily take a few months' break, as a show of good faith. ] (]) 06:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::''I'll try to respond to Jaakobou and LamaLoLeshLa's q's/comments later today. Meanwhile, thanks to you both. I look forward to hearing additional comments. Take care, ] | ] 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Maybe what you need is a heavily pro-Palestinian mentor who might have more credibility with PR when s/he spanks PR for any naughtiness? (Apologies if I missed this suggestion previously, in which case I support it.) Carol Moore 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)] ]
	That is part of the basis behind the dual mentorship proposal given above, and discussed here: ], ], ], and ]. -- ] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I specifically recommend reading Nishidani's comments in ] and how it may explain the failures of the past mentorships. -- ] (]) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::G-Dett has got me by the nuts. As I said, I definitely do not want to work on wiki articles under present conditions, since it appears impossible, except with extraordinary amounts of patience, to get consistent NPOV quality on board. There is simply a lack of trust. I would remonstrate with my Jewish colleagues that the quality of intelligence, insight, critical awareness and empathy that is the hallmark of the great generations who came out from the shtetl into the haskalah, and made, by their dual vision as completely naturalized others within the Western world, a germinal and massive contribution to Western identity we can all be proud of, is rarely evinced here. The expected quality, which you'll find alive in any number of casual conversations in bars, cafés, and soirées in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, is not quite here.
	:::I'm a couple of generations older, I intuit, than many here. I further told PR that a strain of masochism fuels most heroism and virtue, and by that meant to nudge PR into self-reflection on the wellsprings of grievance (I grieve, when not sober, over history: I don't make an avocation of choosing one particular group out of several hundred that has suffered persecution, extermination, massacres, gulags, gas-chambers, and the like, and then getting worked up while working over that specific ethnic tragedy on wiki pages). To take on that task is masochistic. If PR wants something like this, then (s)he will have to pay me a high price (and since, as said, I lack all qualifications and the appropriate gifts for mentoring in wiki, it would require official assent), and thus I impose three conditions.
	:::(1) PR volunteer to take an I/P Wikibreak until at least October. (I won't have a decent computer till then, in any case, and have American guests over through September).</BR>
	:::(2) In that period, whatever else PR does, that the following books be (re?)read, slowly, and their contents be mastered:</BR>
	::::(i)], ''Peter Schlemiel''.</BR>
	::::(ii)] ''The Pursuit of the Millenium'' (2) ''Europe’s Inner Demons''.</BR>
	::::(iii)],''The Assassins of Memory and Other Essays''</BR>
	:::: (iv)],''The Destruction of the European Jews'' (Yale UP ed.2003) </BR>
	::::(v)Raul Hilberg, ''The politics of Memory: The journey of a Holocaust historian''</BR>
	::::(vi)Raul Hilberg, ''Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe, 1933-1945''</BR>
	::::(vii)], ''Israel and the Arabs''</BR>
	::::(viii) Maxime Rodinson, ''Cult, Ghetto, and State: The Persistence of the Jewish Question''</BR>
	::::(ix) ],''If this is a man'' </BR>
	::::(x) Primo Levi, ''The Truce''</BR>
	::::(xi)Primo Levi, ''The Drowned and the Saved''.</BR>
	::::(xii)Henryk Broder ,'Tagar and the Teepee Family', in his ''A Jew in the New Germany 2003'' pp.124-129.</BR>
	:::: ], ''The Civilizing Process. Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations,'' (1994 revised ed.)</BR>
	:::: ], ''Reflections on the Jewish Question'',
	:::I would have ]'s ''The Courtier'' on the list, but perhaps that is overegging the pud. What is there is in Elias, and the point is about the history of good manners.</BR>
	:::(3) That provisorally, PR make an act of faith and trust, and accept Avi's offer as co-mentor.</BR>
	::::I would not be ready until October (and will not return to editing wiki). So if PR wishes to experiment in the meantime with Avi, and Avi has not revoked his offer, then obviously they might work out interim arrangements. Mentoring is a thankless task, PR, and I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of. And, that you learn to pinpoint tersely the problem, or edit you are minded to discuss, to your mentor(s). Of course a short question on each book, to check that it is understood why I asked you to read it, would be necessary.
	:::This is a steep price, but I'm not willing to come down on these preconditions. Take it or leave it. ] (]) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)</BR>
	::::Ok, I see that you're willing to mentor PR under particular conditions and, in any case, you say: "I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of." Thanks for your comment. Take care, ] | ] 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	We're 4 months out from these elections, and the wiki pages have been unprotected to facilitate discussion etc. - I think it'd be great if everyone with time, energy, and particularly experience, could take a look, and help organise stuff well in advance.... cheers, ] (]) 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	* Hmmm. I wonder why an arbcom-sanctioned and previously banned former sockpuppeteer is taking it upon himself to make up the election pages? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:*That's not helpful. ''']''' '']'' 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::*Privatemusings is an ok bloke in my book. We are none of us perfect, after all. He gets full marks for trying very hard to be helpful and redeem himself. If he wants to help make sure that this election runs smoother than last, and if it's all done within the consensus model, our norms and traditions, etc, more power to him. Besides, it keeps him out of real trouble. ++]: ]/] 03:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::In any case I created the paged and I've never actualy been outright banned.] 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== ABN AMRO or ABN Amro? ==
	Even though the official name of this financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, the article has been renamed ]. Past and present subsidiaries are also being affected by this editing such as ]. Please investigate. ] (]) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	: It seems that this move and the related naming question have been and are still being discussed at the article's talk page. If consensus emerges between interested editors to move it back, that can be done, but right now I don't see what else here is to investigate or what other administrative assistance is required. --] (]) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	: Content disputes are resolved by using the article talk page to gain consensus, not by trying to get admins to force a consensus to your preferred option. ] (]) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::There's no consensus there for the move in the first place, just people waving a disputed section of the MoS as if it trumps all. The company name is ABM AMRO , but what a company calls itself and what the government calls it and what the regulator calls it are as nothing to the mighty MoS and its "no capitals" rule. ➨ ''']''' in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	* Absurd. I moved it back. ABN AMRO is a customer of mine, and Redvers is spot on: they self-identify as ABN AMRO and it's not for us to tell them they are wrong. A redirect is fine fomr the uncapitalised version, of course. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:*Not sure what is 'absurd' about it, but as a former ABN AMRO employee I can safely say that it's all capitalized. However, the North American regions of the bank are in fact ABN AMRO NA. ] (]) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	] changed it back to "ABN Amro." I suggest that all administrators who agree with me that the company is officially ABN AMRO change it back and possibly lock the article. ] (]) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I request that the article will be protected. We have just completed the longest possible procedure for name change and come to a clear community decision based on ] and ]. Steelbeard is of course welcome to differ in opinion, but should adhere to our policies just like everyone else. The discussion should be held at the talk page, not in the article or even here. For a name change the same procedure should be followed as the one just completed, if not a more rigorous one. Until then our peer decision, based on our policies, should be respected, whether we happen to like it or not. ] (]) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I discovered the changes when they were also made later to related articles such as ] and ]. That's why I raised my objections later. ] (]) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Our peer decision is binding across the board. It was done according to the best our best of procudures. It is a pitty that you wish to push your opinion through by force and edit wars. My request from the admins is that the decision will be restored and the article will be protected. ] (]) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It looks as if there was no peer decision judging from the discussion in ] as there is no consensus. ] (]) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Actually there was a consensus according to our policies. But if you believe there was no consensus, you could appeal against the decision of the closing admin. Please restore his/her decision until your appeal is heard, because what you are now doing is bullying Misplaced Pages through editwars. ] (]) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	I'm under the impression that the "consensus" was done behind our back and by the time I found out about it, it was too late. ] (]) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Not terribly impressed that JzG has moved it back to his prefered version and locked it in place, but in the grand scheme of things, due to the magic of redirects, ''it isn't a critical issue''. Why not reopen the discussion, and make a final decision then? It does look like the previous discussion was lightly attended, and might benefit from broader input. Any particular reason, Steelbeard1, to assume bad faith and consider this "behind your back", when it took place on the talk page of the article in question? Any particular reason, JzG, that it was critical to change it again first, and then lock it, rather than just lock it in the wrong version? --] (]) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::As already mentioned above, I entered the fray after changes were made to the ] and ] articles which I closely monitor as I am a customer. ] (]) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I saw that already. Doesn't really answer my question, though. --] (]) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Pretty straightforward, really: I have emails from the company's employees, the email footer is capitalised ABN AMRO. The company's website is also consistently (from what parts of it I've seen) capitalised ABN AMRO. If John Smith comes here and says that actually it's John Sm''y''th we don't tell him he is wrong because the BBC spell it Smith, we put it right and then perhaps put a note in that it's sometimes spelled Smith. Here I think we have a piece of overzealous application of MOS, looking at sources followed on from the assertion that MOS says not to capitalise. Well, MOS is a general guideline but in the end we should (and always do, where I've seen) go with how the subject self-identifies. We don't go through the article on John Wayne changing all references to Wayne to Morrison, and we certainly don't change the many films to say they starred Marion Morrison. If the bank self-identifies in all-caps, and there has been no evidence presented that it does not, then that is surely how we should primarily identify it. The alleged "consensus" looks to me to be a brief discussion between a few users with a like POV, none of them on the face of it much active on banks or the Netherlands business communtiy in general. Anyway, I took my usual simplistic view, I went to http://www.abnamro.com/ and looked how they spell it there, and since that agreed with what I've seen on communications from the firm, that should be the default unless we have a really good reason to do otherwise. By which I mean a better reason than some generalised house style guideline. I thought that was pretty reaosable myself, but maybe not, who knows. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::You misunderstand; I agree it should be ABN AMRO. If the talk page of that article ever rises back up above it's current level of discourse, I may comment there to that point. My problem is, we usually don't revert good faith editors we disagree with, and then lock the article. That's basically saying to the other editor, "I win, because mine's bigger than yours." There are several people on that talk page who (incorrectly, IMHO) think it should be ABN Amro. They have their reasons. FWIW, there actually was something of a consensus to make the move; it wasn't done sneakily, behind someone's back. If the wrong decision was made, argue that consensus can change, reopen the discussion. If you win, great. If you lose, take it like a man and move on. But by changing it then locking it, you've probably just done your small part to ensure that ], and the rest of the people that honestly disagree with you, think that admins can do whatever they want on an article, and everyone else's job is to sit there and take it. --] (]) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Seems like Guy is being Guy again. Why bother to reach consensus when you can bring out the big 'ol tools and clobber the opposition into senselessness. Also, Guy that ABN AMRO/Amro is his customer but fobbed off the invitation for him to disqualify himself due to ] as 'absurd'. What is absurd about disengaging when you have a direct financial interest in a topic? Poorly played. ] (]) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Let's try to keep it classy; "Guy being Guy" deosn't help. The COI thing is a bit of a red herring; I seriously doubt Guy has some kind of bizarre financial interest in keeping it spelled AMRO. --] (]) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: It's certainly something of a stretch, claiming ] on the ''name'' because the company is a customer of my employer! In any case, ] - they boldly moved it, I reverted, the problem really started when they simply moved it back again. There really is no sense in leaving something in a state we know for a fact to be ''wrong'' just for the sake of form, especially when form here demands that the change be reverted, but the uncapitalisers refused to accept that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Let me state unequivocally that I do not suspect Guy of taking cash payments for his defense of ABN AMRO's corporate logo (I wish it were that easy). If I left anyone with such a notion then I apologize profusely. However, having a close association with a subject, such as customer/vendor, in my mind is usually a good reason to steer clear. ] (]) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::(e/c, replying to Guy) They didn't boldly move it; they moved it ''after discussion.'' And nowhere in BRD do I see "use your admin tools to lock it at your prefered title". If ] had found an admin that agreed with his position first, would you have been happy if they locked the article at Amro? This is a content dispute; like all content disputes, it's a serious pain in the ass. Editors have to deal with content disputes every day. I don't enjoy them, and it's one of the reasons I don't contribute content <s>much</s> at all. But I'm pretty sure if we do want to wade into a content dispute we're not supposed to use our admin tools to get our way in one, even if we're sure we're right. But I'm making the same point for the third time now, I'm evidently not getting through, so I'll go find another windmill to tilt. --] (]) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: The discussion is nugatory and based on stylistic not factual points. And I have absolutely no tangible connection to ABN AMRO, other than the fact that as a mail admin I sometimes have to diagnose mail issues between us and them. It's not in any way a conflict, it's really rather silly to paint it as such. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Whatever happens with this (and I believe Guy has this one right based on his websearching and the company's self-labelling), the article needs to be updated to be consistent throughout. Either the title (and every subsequent mention of the title in the article) needs to be ABN AMRO or it needs to be ABN Amro. Not both. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Sure. I think the issue comes from the fact that Amsterdam and Rotterdam merged to form "Amro" (intercapping not much in fashion then, maybe), and some have continued to use that capitalisation. Amro is right for that (historical) bank, but the present bank styles itself ABN AMRO. Or rather Fortis-RBS-Santander :-) So we need to be careful about the exact context. Oh, another example where MOS conflicts with the self-identificaiton: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. And I think that one is fatuous, but I still go with it per self-identification. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	I of course am watching this with great interest, as it's not just a matter of the redirect vs. article question, it's also a matter of how the articles referrring to the firm capitalise the firm name. Some of you may know that my ] wishes that it be referred to in all capitals, but some ] insist that it be known as Lego instead. <small> OK, they're not really blockheads, I just wanted to work that bad pun in...</small> However, I do have to wonder why this is here, it seems a content dispute. Well, except for the edit warring and protection and stuff. Oh, bonus points for using "nugatory" in a sentence! :) ++]: ]/] 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:It's self-evident that almost any edit-war over whether a particular phrase should use capitals or minuscule type is ], and yet with one disagreement that I'm involved in, I do wonder if some of our otherwise diligent editors ever read ] as applying to their particular walled garden. For me, common sense says that if the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines don't say that corporations known by all-caps versions should be in all caps, then it is the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines that are wrong. ] (]) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	I've posted the following in ]. This dispute is getting to be almost as long as the "The/the Beatles" dispute which flares up occasionally in ]. The difference is that in the Beatle dispute (note that I'm using this as an adjective, not a noun), it split the Beatle Misplaced Pages community down the middle with absolutely no consensus. The noun "The Beatles" continues to prevail in all Misplaced Pages article related to ]. The difference in this dispute is that all parties familiar with ABN AMRO as a financial institution are united in using that company's legal name in all-capital letters. The opponents--let me break for a moment to say that the term ] is not supposed to be an insult but fits perfectly the behavior of obsessive "by the book" editors who follow the Misplaced Pages MOS as a Holy Bible not to be questioned--are not familiar with ABN AMRO at all but wish to impose their naming conventions on everything else despite what they call themselves. When this editor reported the ABN AMRO editing dispute in the Administrators' Notebook, the ABN AMRO article name was restored and subsequently locked with nearly all the ABN AMRO references in all-caps restored. That's because a key administrator who locked the article happens to have ABN AMRO as a client in his day job. I've requested a re-evaulation of the MOS in cases like this in ]. ] (]) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== ] - stalking and harassing ==
	{{resolved|Nothing actionable here. &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)}}
	'''(note:readded as not answered as of 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC))'''
	'''(note:readded by ] without my prior knowledge but still needs to be addressed.''' ] (]) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	This user has a history of stalking, harassing and disruptive editing. He has followed me around to several articles, reverting, deleting and leaving messages on my talk page. In particular, I point to the edit histories of and the fact that the user then went on to , presumably because I has worked on it extensively, and deleted the actor's name as a notable in the article about .
	He received a warning about his , which he used to revert edits I'd made as "vandalism."
	He received today from two other editors.
	I admit I lost my cool after a while and left on his talk page, for which I was unfairly banned for two weeks. I don't think it's right that someone like this is allowed to prowl around here the way he does without any kind of rebuke from the community and that would know what was going on and penalize one of his targets instead. ] (]) 12:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	:One article does not a stalker make. ] | ] 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I should point out that the user has a strong sense about the use of non-free images - he doesn't think they should be used at all. He nominates for deletion at his own whim, reverts as "vandalism" edits that offer a rationale for the image's presence and harasses just about anyone who tries to go up against him. Here's a sample of his "submit or die" editing from July 15 and 16: ,,,,,..
	::And read his comments : he's got an ax to grind, and he's not about making . ] (]) 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	:The misuse of Twinkle should result in him not being allowed to use it. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I couldn't find any Twinkle abuse after the warning, so we could jyst ] and assume he learned from the warning... ] (])
	'''OK, this has been here for three days and this is the best you can do? This guy continues to get a free pass? The Teflon Deletionist?''' ] (]) 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:There doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem that requires urgent admin intervention, given also that Damiens.rf hasn't edited for two days. ] (]) 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed. He's not an admin so ''nominating'' does what harm exactly? an admin needs to agree to delete after all. ] | ] 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Most people here are probably considering the source, too. You have a history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::According to you. ] (]) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Your is quite telling. You should drop this and move on. ] (]) 12:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I actually support Cbsite in his complaint. The user concerned has been making spurious nominations of Australian images, and has concentrated on them, even after some Australian editors asked him to not participate in Australian debates when he didn't understand Australian history and the copyright situation of some images. Check out his nomination history. ] (]) 10:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Get over it. Damiens' image nominations are legitimate, as confirmed by the fact that the vast majority of them have in fact been endorsed by administrators and led to valid deletions. And this is not an Australian-versus-non-Australian thing, it's a keeping-policy-versus-ignoring-policy thing. People who do a lot of image cleanup sometimes have to concentrate on a certain area for a while, simply because they find that in that area people have systematically been playing fast and loose with image usage. Happens all the time, and doesn't mean the editor has an underlying grudge against that topic area. You need to stop your bullying (). ] ] 10:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::There is fair image patrol and there is Damiens.rf, some of whose nominations are correct, but whose nominations are ''distinctly'' and ''consistently'' ]. That sort of venom is not necessary. It's not an Aus vs non-Aus thing (I think the guy probably is Australian), it's just straightforward enforcement of Misplaced Pages policy against someone who seems to have turned ] into a fine art, with the attitude to boot. ] 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	== User:CENSEI ==
	:'''I was not satisfied''' with the way I presented my part of the story. Here again for the record, I am giving a full picture of the story. The content was not added by me, I just defended its inclusion. Here is the first time it appeared ( and ). Following is the content in dispute.
	:"'''A copy of the book was found in the home of the ] Jim David Adkisson.''' and ."
	:The content cites two references one, a original "'''affidavit in support of search warrant'''" submitted by investigator Steven Still. You could find the title of the books in his handwriting in the last page.
	:Reference 2 is a newspaper Knoxnews (a reliable source) which picked up the story and reported the same.
	:Let me point out some facts and you can make your own judgement. The title of the books are ] and ]. This is the killer in his own words ''"During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years."''
	:I have to be fair to point out that it is not yet established whether the killer has ever read these books and the responsibility of the books in his actions. Because of that, all that was included in the article (like mentioned above) was that those books were found in his home.
	:Additionally, an important instance which convinced me to support inclusion was when an annonymous IP address in the talk page pointed in wikipedia articles such as ] and ]. Now having presented the full picture, I am not going to insist on the inclusion but i thought I make sure that issues are not misunderstood. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	I am involved in editing of ] and ]. The user CENSEI is removing a well sourced edit referenced to this . I reverted the edit explaining that ] can not be invoked for article on books. He reverted them again and the edit summary he provided was "I can and I have". Please have a look at these links for reference. . Thanks. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:] applies to all content which concerns living people; the nature of the article's subject is not relevant. CENSEI was correct to revert your edits and you should not restore them. Even if BLP were not an issue, the edits are problematic with regard to a number of other policies too. ] (]) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks. Could you pls cite and explain the policies it has problem with??? <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Stating that ''Book X was found in the house of notorious blaggard Y'' is doubly problematic. On the one hand, it serves to imply that the book is dubious by association. On the other hand, it also implies that Y is an adherent of the ideas in the book. Both ways round, this is problematic with regard to ], ] and ]. To the extent that it implies something about a living person, ] is thus also relevant. ] (]) 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Ahem, I think you'll find it's ]. But I agree wholeheartedly. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::: And so you might find ] informative, too. - ] (]) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	* That article qualifies for a template:
	:: {{User:JzG/Uninformed_wingnut_drivel}}
	: Sadly the problem is the book as much as the article... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::: My point in the removal of this is that it does seem to be guilt by association, and the worst part is that its Misplaced Pages editors making the association, not a reliable source. 15:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::: It was the which made the association, not Misplaced Pages editors. Per ''Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused shooter's reading list'': "Inside the house, officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by radio talk show host Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by talk show host Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly." Reliable, verifiable, published facts are facts. Is it okay in Misplaced Pages to whitewash reliable, verifiable, published facts we are uncomfortable with? I certainly hope not. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup>/] 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Nobody has disputed that the book was in the mans house. What has been disputed is the relevence of it in the article about the book. The Knoxville newspaper did not make the "association". They stated, correctly, that it was there. They made an implication that it was involved, as you are doing. ] directs to avoid '''"guilt by association"'''. If Adkisson had quoted from the book or if the book had advocated violence as a means of polotical change in the US, you'd have a leg to stand on. I've read the book (unlike you Arthur) and it doesn't. Nor has any official source stated any connection. The media simply reported the presence of the book, among others. Thus far, you can't even show evidence the man even read the book. That is why you are wrong and that is why you are violating ] and why the inclusion is disputed. The factual basis of the book being present isn't disputed and isn't being "whitewashed". Also present and seized were a Ford Escape and an insurance bill from State Farm. Should we include references to the killer in those articles as well? ] (]) 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The news article does not mention that the Ford Escape was seized, merely that it was searched where it was parked right in front of the church. The news article doesn't mention State Farm at all. The Knoxville News Sentinal made the professional news reporting decision to include the books by name in the news article. Why should we whitewash their news report? --] <sup><small>]</small></sup>/] 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::It doesn't matter what the news article mentioned, they aren't the only source available. In the discussion, I posted a media source that shows the entire warrant application and return. The warrant request, which asked to look for books (and DVD's, CD's whatever), laid out the probable cause. While the probable cause mentioned specific quotes from Adkisson, it made no mention of the book specifically. Further, you should retract your statement. The Ford Escape was seized under the warrant (which is what I said). And the warrant return lists his State Farm bill, his First TN bill, a letter from Knox Co. Human Services, his lease contract and other items. It is common practice to seize items that MAY lead to either direct or indirect evidence. Just because an item is seized does NOT make it involved. They are seized for POTENTIAL involvement. If and when an official source makes that connection to involvement, we can revisit this. At this point, there is no more evidence to blame this book than State Farm or Knox County Human Services. ] (]) 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::I fully realize that the search warrant contains lots of details which can be invoked as red herrings. But the manifold contents of the search warrant are not necessarily ]. On the other hand, the Knoxville News Sentinel is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it considers the ownership of anti-liberal books by an anti-liberal urban terrorist as notable enough to include in its news article. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear from administrators on this issue. Thanks. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup>/] 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::The Knoxville News Sentinel can consider anything they want to be "notable", they are not an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages IS an encyclopedia and the inclusion, without a real connection, in not encyclopedic. As for you wanting to hear from an administrator....obviously you only hear what you want Arthur. CIreland IS an administrator and he already said '''"CENSEI was correct to revert your edits and you should not restore them. Even if BLP were not an issue, the edits are problematic with regard to a number of other policies too."''' Then JzG, agreed it did not belong, So Arthur, there is your answer from 2 uninvolved administrators. Do you plan to just admin shop until you find one that will say what you want to hear? ] (]) 06:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::CIreland, you have just summed up my on-going battle. I pointed out that ] applies, particularly since the book consists of the authors opinions and the author is living. Further, ] points out that guilt by association should be avoided and that a clear demonstration of relevance should exist. This isn't a case of where the murderer quoted the book, it was merely present in his home. There isn't even evidence that he has read it, nor anything in the book that advocates violence as a means of political change in the US. The only thing anyone has claimed as "evidence" is that the title calls it a "war of liberty". Yet none of those same editors would claim the "war on poverty" or the "war on illiteracy" advocate violence. ] (]) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Spam blacklist at Bramson ORT College ==
	I'm trying to put a db-copyvio tag on ] since it's a copyvio from www.stateuniversity.com/universities/NY/Bramson_ORT_College.html, but I keep getting a spam blacklist warning. I've tried removing all links from the page, and even took the http:// off of the front of the URL that it was copied from, but it won't let me save the page. Could some kind admin please delete the page as a copyvio? Thanks. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:It was the stateuniversity.com link, apparently, since that wouldn't let me report here until I removed the http://, I wonder why it wouldn't let me do that on the article page? <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	::See ]. Specifically, on ]. The discussion can be found ]http://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#stateuniversity.com here]. If you definitely need it, please show how provides information that isn't better served by other sites as it's most definitely not a primary source on anything. ''']''' ]&#0124;] 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well from what Corvus is saying I don't think he wants to use it as a source, just as a required parameter in {{]}}. I've had a quick look at the article, and it looks like at some point in the past it was just a stub and not a copyvio. Is there any reason you couldn't revert to a pre-copyvio state? ]<small>(])</small> 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::OK, I've reverted to the pre-copyvio stage, circa 2006. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::My attempt at reverting to the pre-copyvio version has been reverted by ]. I've re-reverted him and left a note on his Talk page to please read this. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I do not question that stateuniversity.com is on the spam blacklist. The problem is that the stateuniversity.com link used to justify the ] claim specifies that the "Summary content courtesy of Misplaced Pages". Stateuniversity.com appears to have copied material from Misplaced Pages, not vice versa, nor does the source used to justify the copyvio match all of the material removed. I will also point out that your latest edit still removes reliably sourced material as well as an infobox. A clearer case of the exact details of the alleged copyvio needs to be made. Per ], a revert to a previous version should only be done if "''all'' of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement". As this is not the case, only the material that is in violation should be removed. ] (]) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	Alansohn wants to revert the copyvio again, claiming my justification for the removal of the copyright violation isn't appropriate. I will not revert him again if he reverts me. If he wants to take responsibility for having a copyright violation here, then so be it. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:To clarify -- and I would appreciate some admin guidance on this issue -- it appears that Stateuniversity.com has copied text from Misplaced Pages. The page in question at stateuniversity.com says flat out that "Summary content courtesy of Misplaced Pages". The fact that there is overlap between the page at stateuniversity.com and the ] article is not evidence of a ]. As I do not own the article, I cannot take responsibility for what is there, other than to try to add the sources that the article needs. My primary question is does stateuniversity.com constitute evidence of a copyright violation? ] (]) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:: The note is pretty vague as to eaxctly what content is courtesy of wikipedia, all that section, part of it, buts elsewhere or what? But since it provides no link back, adds additional information of it's own (and thus is a derivative) and doesn't give any authorship details it may well be a copyvio itself, and so we shouldn't link to it per ]. --] (]) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:: Also the DRV ongoing suggested some maybe copied from , I haven't looked closely but this maybe a case of stateuniversity reusing content from here which was a copyvio from elsewhere anyway... --] (]) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	Looking at the Internet Archive, it looks like they copied from us. The content in question appeared in Misplaced Pages on January 17, 2007, while the Internet Archive copies for January 9, 2007, and January 24, 2007 do not have this content. --] (]) 04:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== The walrus vandal ==
	<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Blocked by Tanthalas39. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Blocked by Tanthalas39. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
	They're now using {{vandal|Walrusman11}}, an account which first vandalized the article back in January and never got a vandalism warning. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:There's a walrus vandal now?—] (]) 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Abusive ], his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions ==
	I have waited this long to raise this here because I was allowing the due process of the wrongful sockpuppetry accusations and WQA concerning myself to transpire. I have been left disappointed at the end of it () .
	] conducted a sockpuppetry investigation on behalf of Wikepidia and I was one of the accused. During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations. This included the completely misrepresentative action of pulling together portions of statements from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). There selective use of “false/manipulated evidence” to incriminate me from a page that also had information that would contribute to prove my innocence. I have presened all the details at . This includes a summary of all the abuses and further links to all relevant pages.
	Moreover I was initially not directed to the correct evidence pages nor was I notified of a later, related, ANI compliant.
	It was categorically shown that I was not a sock (at ] & ]), yet there was no apology, nor any acknowledgment for the mistake.
	It now cannot be disputed that his evidence presented against me was poorly researched. It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador. At I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others. Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition (compare and this ; I have interjected with and ) and claimed it to be non-consensus!! The aim appears to be to target the other editor’s content, but in light of Noclador’s behaviour towards me I see this as a convenient attempt to remove some of my citations. After all, he omits me (the main driver of the subsection, modified from an earlier attempt to include verifiable information) when he lists other editors as having made the consensus contributions.
	Furthermore, others involved in the investigation were prepared to overlook the abuses by ] and impinge me for making personal attacks (plural). This is a baseless claim because the only thing I said was that ] was lying and manipulative (which can be (and has been - at the evidence link) demonstrated to be an understatement). I certainly do not claim perfection on my part, however, this is, quite frankly, a glaring double standard.
	I asked for several things during the WQA discussion and as a sign of good faith modified the statement on my talk page to not include mention of the abuses that were carried out by my “accuser”. I received nothing. (See the two links, as mentioned above: and ) So I see this as another one sided outcome. But I appreciate and respect the efforts of those who tried to mitigated the situation - they have been forthright.
	Given that ] has been able to flout Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Misplaced Pages ethos when others do not?
	] (]) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	: Please summarize. Very few people are going to read walls of text like that. -- ] (]) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Summary: ] accused user ] of being a sock-puppet, in the course of which ] behaved uncivily towards ]. When the sock-puppetry allegations turned out to be untrue, ] asked for an apology and ] refused, when the whole thing could have been stopped in its tracks by a simple apology. The issue went to ] where it was not resolved. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::* ] comment is only a synopsis of Romaiois accusations and omits facts and lots of details. Fact is: During June a series of new users began to edit WWII topics with with a POV to proof that Italian forces were good fighters in WWII. As the editors in question were obviously part of a sock circus I started a report about them at ]. I added Romaioi on June 25 at 2:22pm because ''"just 100 edits but these are only in Italian WWII military topics (and at that: the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...) also he copies text that Generalmesse wrote directly "'' and informed Romaioi 4 minutes later about it: "You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page." When he went online 4 days later he could not find the link to the socketpuppetry case as in the meantime the page name had been moved and a checkuser had been requested on the socks - as soon as he informed me about that '''I left him a note''' explaining were he can find the case thus defend himself and what the purpose of a checkuser is .
	:::* Romaioi began to defend himself ignoring all Wikiquette rules: ''"I will be expecting an unreserved apology from you."'' ''"Do your homework."'' ''"Use some of that ] that you mentioned."''; ''"Your moral and intuitive compass is upside down."'' ; ''"I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved."'' ''"So let me ask. Does ] have some other agenda? I would like to know what it is."''; ''"How is the witch hunt going?"''; and that was just the first day! I therefore decided to not discuss with Romaioi, but to find more of the socks and more proof linking them together.
	:::* The next day Romaioi started were he had left off the night before: ''"] has lied in his very first accusation."'' ''"I only found the correct link: ] by chance. Given the narrow and manipulative nature of by ]’s evidence against me included on the latter page over the past day (discussed below), I would like to question if this was deliberate to mis-direct me to a page that I could not edit and not allow me to see (nor reply to) the case being presented against me."'' (by chance???) ''"] has persisted with his twisting arguments."'' (I did not respond to him to wait for the checkuser outcome... I did not persist, just did not answer) ''"] attempting to tar and feather me"'' ''"It all sounds frivilous to me."'' ''""''; at this point the checkuser results came back an showed that '''of 13 suspected socks 10 were confirmed socks''', 2 users to old to check and Romaioi was proven to be unrelated.. A attempt by ] to explain him the ceckuser process and had no effect.
	:::* Romaioi continued to insult: ''"that he was happy to lie just to see me implicated."''; and even to come to my talkpage to insult me ''""''; as I had and have no interest to discuss with someone as him and I do not like to be bullied on my talkpage I removed his comment, which let him to reinsert it and hurl more insults at me: ''"stop being petty"'' ''"as you clearly have no idea"'' ''"as I do not think much of you in light of your inability to acknowledge your own mistake(s)"'' - at this point I had enough and filed a report about his myriads of insults at ] but also decided to move on to more important work.
	:::* Today ] informed me that there is a ] against me... Well, '''as it turns out Romaioi spent the last month continuing to smear me''' - and now he filed a complaint against me??? ''"Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions"'' Abusive??? I went now to check his edits over the last month to get an idea, what he is talking about and found out, that he spent the last month dragging this story on and on: on ]s talkpage ; on his own talkpage with insults and presumptions: ''"evidence presented against ] was manipulative and misrepresentative."'' ''"On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown that ] was not a sock puppet."'' (categorically was not even used once on the ceckuser page!) ''"anyone in future to be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line."'' ''"No acknowledgement of his error or apology (for either the mistakes or the personal attacks) has been made by ]."'' ''"The extreme prejudice by ] against ] has continued after the sock puppetry case."'' ''"and typically making false accusations of ] as justification for removal."'' ''"Whilst the overall cause for which ] was working for was good, his treatment of an innocent contributor has been reprehensible and devoid of ]."'' ''"The message is to remain here as a permanent reminder of the and example of abuse of authority that remains largely unacknowledged."''.
	:::* and that was just on July 4th and on July 11th he continued with a brazen lie: Answering '']'' <small>'']''</small>, who pointed out that I did inform Romaioi at the very start that a checkuser is noting personal Romaioi answers: ''"] indicated nothing of the sort to me."''
	:::* On July 15th ] tried to explain Romaioi the checkuser process once more and suggested he move on, but on July 16th Romaioi goes on... ''"I can only ''speculate'' that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character."'' ''"that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction."''
	:::* and on July 19th, same story continues ''"No one has ever been able to say that I did anything more that claim that Noclador was lying and did not have a clue (and then summarize events and point out that I receieved no apology)."'' He wants an apology for him insulting me or what??? and he insinuates that I would be ready to harm his family ''"Further, to give you some background, where I live there have been incidences of people/families being been tracked down to their homes from IP addresses and being physically attacked, all over online disagreements. I know of 2 such cases. So given the disingenuous nature of the evidence being accrued against me and the talk of IP’s etc I had genuine concern that an attack on my family was becoming a real possibility."'' WTF??? '''This is the worst insinuation he threw around! This is unacceptable!!!''' Is he thinking I will take a plane from Europe to Australia to go an club his child??? God, I haven't even thought about him for 3 weeks at this point!
	:::* and he goes on: claiming first ''"I am not trying to escalate the situation."'' and then smears me more ''"Removal of this would benefit noclador more than me because there would be no record of his behaviour."'' ''"I would like a statement inserted there by an administrator stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. The statement should also declare that Nocaldor’s assertions should be ignored."'' and he ''"I would also like to see it stressed (]), that accusers are to be polite, courteous, respectful (whatever you want to call it), are prohibited from manipulating and misrepresenting evidence, and must not make personal attacks. There should be repercussions for uncivil behaviour."'' So, being polite and explaining to him everything was not good enough??? Has he looked at all his insults? ''"uncivil behaviour"'' does he have some diff-links to this behaviour he complains about???
	:::* But he is not yet finished! There is more ''"If he has behaved in this manner once, he can do it again. Noclador should be observed. Based on assessment of the circumstances, I do not believe this incident to be isolated. I may be the first person making the point as far as he is concerned."'' ''"Finally, I would like a statement inserted by someone with administrative authority here indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it."'' ''"And lets not forget how its started: from a wrongful accusation and bad manners directed at me."'' I am speechless at the level of insinuation, twisting of facts, lying and smearing Romaioi has had the impudence to do behind my back!
	:::* and on July 21st yet another lie: ''"The fact that I was being incorrectly associated with fascists by my accuser, both on the evidence page and on my talk page, compounded my concerns of the possibility of an attack."'' I did not link him to fascists - my statements read: ''"Your interest in topics regarding Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus - both areas were User:Brunodam and the above socks have for a long time tried to manipulate the content (towards fascist glorification and revisionism)"'' and ''"It was written by the aforementioned socks with the stated intent to glorify the Italian Army in WWII. It's not neutral and it uses various fascist claims/statement as sources and that is unacceptable for an encyclopaedia."'' I spoke about the socks not him!!!
	:::* and on August 5th, he still doesn't want to move on and brings his continuing insulting behaviour to new lows: ''"Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back."'' (What pat on the back??) ''"Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish)."'' (is the above all rubbish???) ''"You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants."'' An "unethical abuser"??? Sorry, but once more: WTF!? This is '''the worst collection of insults''' I have seen on wikipedia in over 2 years and I had the "joy" of having to deal with über-vandals like ] more than once!
	:::* '''The recent events:''' On August 3rd ] and on August 5th ] surfaced and it became quickly clear that both were new incarnations of the sock circus. After I talked with ] and ] we reached a consensus to mass revert/take the edits by socks down! (to which a IP immediately hurled a and Romaioi returned to continue his smear campaign with '''insults:''' ''"Your abusive friend Noclador tried his darndest to prove that I was one of GeneralMesse's sockpuppets and hurled a lot of insults my way. You must have sparked something in him."'', '''lies:''' ''"In deleting your inclusions Noclador has ] some existing "concensus" information."'' (the consensus was to remove the addition by the socks!) '''insults:''' ''"Another example of him not doing his homework properly."'' & ''"I will undo Noclador's vandalism"''... but he was not content with that and in a second instant went on to
	:::* and then he filed this ] report - in his usual style: ''"During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations."'' ''"It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador."'' ''"I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others."'' (the insults on my talkpage I did revert! What else? Maybe he as a diff link to prove this???) ''"Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition"'', yet another lie: s edits and '''not a single Romaioi edit in sight!''' and s edits and '''in the last 500 edits there is not a single edit of Romaioi!!!''' '''So, which "cited contributions" of his did I delete???''' I did revert the ITALONY & Bendiksen63 edits! none of Romaiois edits!
	:::* '''and then he increases the slander even more:''' ''"Given that ] has been able to flout Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Misplaced Pages ethos when others do not?"'' Where '''have I''' flouted the rules???
	:::* '''Let me summarize:''' Romaioi doesn't do constructive work, only slander, malign and defame. He is lying, insulting and does show 0 good faith. While I have been doing 500 constructive edits in the last month alone, have contributed massively to wikipedia, have not insulted Romaioi, have not threatened him in any way and have moved on after he was proven to be not connected to the sock circus in question, he has continued for now 5 weeks a campaign to smear my spotless record on wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Noclador). I make it now clear that I will not discuss this matter further and expect this report to be closed at once and that it will be made clear to Romaioi that any further actions of his will result in a indef ban as an "no good faith" editor. --] (]) 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::* User '''Noclador''' is undoubtedly fair and honest, his great contributions to Misplaced Pages surely speak for himself, and his behavior, as character of the Misplaced Pages community, has nothing common with these mendacious accusations against him. ] (]) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::]'s comments are particularly unhelpful and really do not help to resolve the situation, nor do they reflect what actually happened. The fact is that ] was not the only editor involved in dealing with Generalmesse's sockpuppet circus, I helped out in a small way. To be brutally honest, as I have been with ], had I spotted his contribution I would have added him to the sock puppet report myself; his edits fitted the pattern of the sock puppet master and he actually restored one of his contributions. ] withdrew from contact with ] after he responded by calling him a liar and it got unpleasant; if you check ]'s talk page here, you can see the explanation and response. I have no doubt that ] would have apologised for the accusation were it not for the personal attack and ]'s aggressive demand for an apology. I tried to smooth things over myself here. Now I have attempted to explain at length to ] that ]'s actions were not aimed at him personally but he just doesn't seem to understand how this works. I issued a Wikiquette alert after ] put up another summary attacking ] in the hope that this could be defused.
	::::Essentially the accusations against ] are entirely unfounded, ]'s responses usually fit into the TLDR category and to be honest I'm somewhat non-plussed by his inability to see that he was not targeted personally and his pursuit of ], with accusations of lying and abuse of power as well as unnecessary personal attacks do seem to indicate he has taken things incredibly personally. I can understand him being somewhat upset at being caught up in the sock puppet case but he has really gone the wrong way around airing a grievance to the point that his single-minded pursuit of ] has the hallmark of ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Can somebody summarize the above material, i'm too busy eating lunch, tia, --] (]) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I've been asked to comment by Noclador. I've never found him abusive of power or lying at all; he's a good wikipedian, in my view, doing useful work on national armies, among other things. While I have not examined all the facts of the case, Noclador doing such things seems to me to be extremely unlikely. Regards ](]) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	(undent) ], do you wish to comment on ]'s description of your conduct? If you ask for an apology but act that aggressively and belligerently, I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't want to bother with you again. Be civil. You asked him, he doesn't respond, don't bother him again. Assume good faith on his part for his conduct. Do not assume bad intentions from an error. What is the purpose of bringing it up again and again? -- ] (]) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I've taken a bit of a hit for my comment earlier, perhaps justifiably, but I did think it was clear that I was responding to the request for a summary of '''''Romaioi's claim''''', which I think is what I provided. I would also like to point out that it was I who notified Noclador of this thread (which I mistakenly marked as being on AN/I rather than AN). My apologies to Noclador, and I think I'll now bow out before I mess up again. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I was in a minor way involved in the SSP case that has caused this mutual rancour. While the checkuser results eventually exonerated Romaioi, his/her coincidental appearance at the same time as Generalmesse's massive sockfarm caused him/her to get accused of being one of the socks. Noclador was, as far as I am concerned, at all times acting absolutely in good faith, and did a sterling job in getting Generalmesse and all his puppets shut down. It was deeply unfortunate that Romaioi got caught up in it, but, frankly, at the time I (and, I believe, most other observers) believed him/her to be a sock. I have since apologised to Romaioi for this, and he has graciously accepted my apology. I think if he had received the same apology from Noclador then the issue would've gone away. However, for whatever reason, Noclador has decided not to apologise. Romaioi should accept that and move on. Now, Romaioi's lengthy post at the top of this thread smacks to me of a vendetta. I am sure that Romaioi as a good faith contributor will be happy at this point, having presented his/her grievances at length, to drop the issue and return to productive good faith editing, which appears to me to be Noclador's modus operandi at all times. ] (]) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::: I can qualify Noclador as a person who is always ready to hear what others have to say (or read, anyway). He gladly takes information offered to him, as long as it comes from reliable sources. I remember how once I provided information from a reliable military review that proved to be partially incorrect. Another wikipedian corrected it. Did Noclador throw a fit and insult him? No. Noclador took the information and corrected the graphic. This concerned the Tsahal OrBat, for those who are curious.
	::: I also am the prime witness of his works being used without giving proper credit in a printed military review. It is always a harsh blow for somebody to see his work used not only without proper credit, but actually crediting a completely different person. I warned Noclador. He contacted them. I personally find the e-mail he sent to the review in question as polite and balanced. Those interested can check my talk page.
	::: It is 4am, I am tired, I cannot formulate long speeches in a cohesive manner. So I shall make it short: Noclador is amongst the best contributors to this whole project, a person that makes Misplaced Pages interesting, reliable and trustworthy and who is always ready to listen(read) what others have to say(type). Thank you for your attention ] (]) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Mass pointy AfD noms ==
	Could a bored admin go through ]'s contribs and close the dozens of AfD nominations he's just made. He's nominated dozens of criticism/controversies pages for the simple fact that the word criticism/controversies is in the name. I think we all know the proper forum for these debates is the article talk page and a little help from ]. I'm out the door in 15 mins and don't have the time. - ] ] 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:They're not pointy at all. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::It seems the AfDs were nominated in good faith. People may find them misjudged, but they are not that obviously and grossly misjudged to warrant a speedy close, in my view. ] ] 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Pointy or not, they're likely to ] in a day or two. I believe consensus is against you here, Spectre. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::In that case, the guidelines should reflect that. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:{{done}} I handled the majority of these. Almost all of them had a severe amount of coverage, and this was entirely pointy. Now, Sceptre, as someone who is advocating that you just take a small break instead of a block, I'd like to ask that you stop overreacting, please. ''']'''] 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::This has happened before, hasn't it? <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't think so. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	Although I can easily believe Sceptre put up these AfDs in good faith, they do stray beyond the bounds of ] in that the AfDs have mostly to do with Sceptre's wider worries over PoV forks. I've never liked ''criticism of'' articles, partly because they can indeed fork but mostly because readers of a topic are somewhat less likely to read content in a sub-article (along with being unlikely to find it by typing something into the Misplaced Pages article search box). However, starting a blizzard of AfDs is no way to fix this: An AfD is a nomination for ''deletion of content'' which would not be helpful here and I don't understand why Sceptre didn't think of this. ] (]) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:It's encouraged that violations of NPOV are deleted. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::It's hard to believe you didn't think that starting this many AfDs at once, in this manner, would start a ruckus. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I actually stopped at result 22 of because I knew that too many would flood AFD and actually ''be'' disruptive. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I think 22 was about 22 too many. The presentation of these articles may indeed be PoV but there is seldom a need to delete sourced content, hence your AfDs were disruptive. A small batch of ] proposals would not have been disruptive and much more helpful. ] (]) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::"Person X is an idiot<sup></sup>" is actually a good reason to delete sourced content. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Can you point out where in ], which you nominated for deletion, there is a statement as blatantly ridiculous as you state above? ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I see this as an reasonable action (in principle), I'm equally uncomfortable with the undue weight problem inherent in "Criticism of.." articles. This might have been dealt with over a longer period of time, but I think Sceptre has a very good point and was attempting to improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Yes. Its good to remove the statements, not the entire article. ''']'''] 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::In some cases, but when the criticism is not notable - in that the criticism has not been the subject of sources discussing the criticism ''as a subject in itself'', then creating an article on "Criticism of.." is giving it undue weight. Such articles are frequently a NPOV problem, so do require close scrutiny and may often need to be deleted. ] (]) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::True, scrutiny is wise on "Criticism of" articles, but putting them up for AfD ''en masse'' is not the proper first step. Something as simple as {{tl|POV}} tags would be a proper starting point. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, I agree in principle with his point, but I don't think making the point in this way was very wise or particularly constructive. ] (]) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Perhaps said articles should be reworked to be "Criticism and praise of..." –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Actually ] is what I was thinking of, particularly Travb's comment. This ''isn't'' the first time this has happened. "Criticism" and "controversy" may be words to avoid, but I don't think they should be eradicated from Misplaced Pages, and certainly not by a unilateral campaign. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 18:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Criticism can be both positive and negative; it means critical discussion. The fact these days most people see it as negative is why positive criticism has to be (unnecessarily) prefaced with "constructive". I like that Misplaced Pages does not feel the need to do so. Criticism is not the opposite of praise; the opposite of "praise" is "scorn". We read (and interpret) "Criticism of ..." as "Scorn of ..." far too often. ] ] 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, however, because ''criticize'' does mean '''' many do muddle it with '''', wrongly taking both to mean ''scorn''. There is no way to skirt this, hence my wariness of any article title beginning with ''Criticism of...''. ] (]) 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Removal of rollback ==
	{{resolved|editor can ask to have the tool back again in a few weeks}}
	I have removed {{user|Sceptre}}'s rollback for abuse of the function at and notified him. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:A regretable action, but one I have to fully endorse. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Yup, good call. that removal of speedy tags should only be done by administrators is wrong and even more so when Sceptre had made such a weird call. Why couldn't he have just removed the parts he saw as an attack? Seriously though,a complete abuse of rollback and Sceptre should have known better. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::That would require deletion of the whole article. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I'll admit I made a mistake in assuming {{tl|drmspeedy1}} applied to all users. The rollback and AIV progressed from there. What the '''hell''' happened to AGF? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::There's no reason to assume good faith when you've been acting like a ] for the past week. Cut it out now or you're going to be blocked. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Main thread is ] - best to keep this in one place I think. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	* I thought we were supposed to ] regardless? And shouldn't ALL admins know better. You guys are supposed to lead from the front on stuff like that after all. ] (]) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	**How about this (and it comes from a non admin): I just spent the last 10 minutes closing out the majority of Sceptres AfD spree (the above section). Combine that with his rollback issue and its an instant block. The reason he isn't blocked? Take ]. ''']'''] 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm beginning to think Sceptre briefly forgot the pith of ] and then got very careless. ] (]) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::I think the carelessness of Sceptre has been going for a while now.--] <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Indeed it has, he/she sent ] to FAR (] because of this same issue (controversies in the title) in April. Hence, the mass AFD noms isn't the first time<s>, and as such, I'd support a block</s>. -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The FAR was in good faith. As I've said hundreds of times, "controversy" is used incorrectly on Misplaced Pages ninety-nine times out of a hundred, and of those ninety-nine, ninety-eight push a POV. The BSA page was actually one of the 1% where the term is used correctly, but I didn't see that the time and thought it was a run-of-the-mill veiled POV page. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Much as I think Sceptre has been pointy and ridiculously childlike over this issue in refusing to accept the opinion presented here and move forward, a block would be pointless. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and blocking someone on the basis of an issue which is now resolved, on account of an issue which is 4 months old, is silly. You might be thinking of suggesting a ], but that's generally for more extreme cases of POINTyness and DICKery. ]''']''' 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::That said, cluebat might be appropriate in some measure if he keeps . ]''']''' 22:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:A block is not needed at this point. If this kind of thing keeps happening then that may be a different story, but not now. ] 22:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree with Martinp23 here. A block is punitive at this point, not preventative. Rollback is gone (for the moment - I'll restore it myself at an appropriate time, not now), the AFDs are closed, they haven't been "reopened" by Will. Leave him be. Sceptre(Will), please go about your business. I've seen ''thousands'' (hyperbole is intentional) of editors ask you to "step away from the keyboard" in so many words. You are valuable here, and valued. Don't go any further with this, pretty please? ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::But this sort of thing has been happening a lot recently. The link Martinp23 posted above is just another example. At this point I feel a block would be a preventative measure, before Will does something stupid again. <font color="#312AB6">]</font><font color="#BB1423">]</font> 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is the first time that there's been any wide-ranging discussion on it, though. I'm in definite agreement with Martin and Keeper that a block is unnecessary right now, particularly against someone who just seems to have temporarily strayed from their normal habits as an extremely constructive contributor. --]-]] 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::As noted on the ANI thread, I did give Sceptre a warning, which he promptly archived, but will have seen, that further trolling, dickery, pointy disruption, tomfoolery etc (call it what you will) will see him blocked. That should end this, unless he starts acting up again. ] ] 11:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Jim Jones/People's Temple editing on ] (again) ==
	{{see|Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive460#Edit warring over People's Temple content on Harvey Milk}}
	{{User|Mosedschurte}} is again edit warring to insert content on ], consensus, discounting SPA's, was pretty clear that ''additional'' content about Jim Jones/ People's Temple was undue. During the last ANI thread Wikidemo boldly started ] which now has become a repository for similar sections from other articles. I've looked into only the Milk content but that section itself seems somewhat cherry-picked (to quote another editor who looked at this). Per advice from ScienceApologist I posted to ], although that board seems less active. I feel the content as it was on the ] article, (), was fine, neutral and RS'd. As soon as the article came off full-protection Mosedschurte reinserted a new-and-improved section that again violates exacted what has been pointed out over the past 2.5 months. I reverted twice already but it's now back in. I'm sick of this and am taking a break. If someone else would look at this I would appreciate it. ] 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I've tried to be a neutral third party in this. While I generally support Benjiboi's views, and think he is an excellent editor, I think he is as culpable as Mosedschurte in the edit warring on ]. While I believe that the consensus on the talk page agreed that having a ''huge'' section on the People's Temple issue was undue weight, it was at one point reduced to a well-sourced three sentence sub-section of the "Public office" section of the article, and really, I don't see how anyone could object to that. As reluctant as I am to say, it seems to be that Benjiboi has consistently tried to sanitize the article and eliminate any mention (except the most general and vague) of the relationship between Milk and Jim Jones/People's Temple, which, for better or worse, is very well documented and was widely noted and discussed in the media at the time and later. Harvey Milk was indeed a great man, and one of my heroes, but it does no service to his memory to try to suppress notable, documented, widely-discussed, historical facts about his political life from his Misplaced Pages article.
	:The article was protected (not by me) in an attempt to end the edit war; I had hoped that would work, but the back-and-forth appears to continue. A good compromise was the three-sentence subsection, which I think everyone can live with, and is certainly unassailably sourced. I propose to revert to that version, and hope that both Benjiboi and Mosedschurte, and others, will accept that as a good encyclopedic solution, and move on. --] (]) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::MCB, you are mischaracterizing this; I wrote those "well-sourced three sentences" and support its inclusion. I have ''never'' suggested that content about Jones/People's Temple be scrubbed, not even close. I am opposed to an undue separate section which implies this was a big chapter in Milk's life/career. This is what the RfC was addressing - was an entire section undue? Minus the SPA comments there was no consensus to keep it. There wasn't much, if any "relationship" between Milk and Jones, I support ''exactly'' what you and other editors have stated is the way to go - three ''NPOV'' sentences in context. This is Milk's bio not anyone else's. ] (]) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::There is some simple confusion between the sections and events I can clear up here. I don't think MCB is referring to your three sentences on Jones supporting Milk in 1975. He's referrnig to the three well sourced sentences in the "Peoples Temple investigation" section.
	:::Your three sentences were of Jones support of Milk in the 1975 election. That's a separate matter from Milk's support of Jones during the investigation and attack of the leader of the Concerned Relatives. The latter was in the :Peoples Temple investigation" section.
	:::Incidentally, the three sentences earlier on the Jones support of Milk in 1975 have also been entirely deleted. ] (]) 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Correct, I was talking about the three sentences in a sub-section called "Peoples Temple investigation", regarding events in 1978, not the 1975 election (which should also be mentioned in a sentence or two, in passing). --] (]) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	First, someone else told me about this thread. I was given no notice at all someone had started some Administrator's notice thread naming me. I'd have never known this was started about me. It is in response to a section of the ] article that Benjiboi began repeatedly deleting in its entirety weeks ago.
	Second, as MCB stated, most editors had agreed that a 3 sentence (actually a bit larger then) section on the Milk's support for the Peoples Temple during the investigations should '''NOT''' be deleted. In fact, these comments were mostly in response to an Rfc started by Benjiboi himself after repeatedly deleting every single mention of Milk's support for Jones or the Peoples Temple from the article.. Here were some comments:
	{{cquote|"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. '''I disagree that this is being given undue weight.''' His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." '''Wildhartlivie''' (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	"I agree with this writer. '''Please do not delete.''' It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by '''Caramia3403''' (talk • contribs)
	"Given the context and timing, '''the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge.''' Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
	" '''This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect.''' Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" '''72.209.9.165''' (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	"'''The Jones section has to stay in a page like this.''' It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	"I think this is '''worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article'''. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly '''appear to be notable and noteworthy'''. '''CENSEI''' (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
	"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me.}}
	Third, if I can step back for a moment, I understand the repulsion by some to any inclusion of support for Jones or attacking the Concerned Relatives, though it is clearly sourced and NPOV phrased. ] was one of the most notorious figures in American history and ] was the largest American civilian loss of life in a non-natural disaster until 9-11 came around. I won't requote Bejiboi's text, but much of it appeared to be concerned with Milk's character and negative implications one could draw from support for Jones and the Temple. However, keep in mind that it is entirely factually correct, properly sourced, phrased in the most neutral manner possible at this point and VERY TINY section of the overall article. Absolutely no implication could be made that Milk wanted anyone to die.
	Fourth, I have REPEATEDLY edited even the short section of the article in response to Benjiboi's comments. Every time,, he simply wholesale deleted the entire section, when it was 7 sentences, 3 sentences and now just 1 sentence.
	Fifth, after frankly being tired of resisting the deletions of every word every time, it was reduced to ONE SINGLE SENTENCE. However, Benjiboi even deleted this one sentence, claiming even this sentence's inclusion amounted to "Undue Weight."
	I apologize for the long post, but I felt I had to respond as this thread was started about me. I encourage anyone interested to examine the and/or . Incidentally, with Wikidemo's starting of a new PT political alliances page, I have no problem with including the details of support for Jones and the PT there as simply a practical matter of not having to fight some edit war. However, this obviously does not mean that the mere mention of support for Jones and attacking the Concerned Relatives should be scoured from the articles in their entirety. This was the point of the one sentence summary and link to the other article. ] (]) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Mosedschurte keeps inserting POV content and seems incapable of adhering to policy and writing this material neutrally. For instance, Milk wrote a letter of support is neutral - "supported the controversial Peoples Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings" is not. It misinterprets which this entire content fork relies upon. ] (]) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::The above editor has made all of two edits to the project both disagreeing with Mosedschurte. --] (]) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== CSCWEM's indefinite protections ==
	{{admin|Can't sleep, clown will eat me}} has a number of indefinite protections currently in place. In light of his inactivity, they should probably be reviewed and either evaluated individually or mass unprotected (and let RFPP sort it out). Thoughts? –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Just review them and unprotect where necessary - Don't just mass unprotect them. Look at each article and review it on its own merits. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 20:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::The problem with an individual review is that CSCWEM has never set an expiry on hundreds of protections, dating back months to years. I'm not sure an individual review is really feasible. - ] ] 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::There often wasn't much rationale given. For example ''01:20, June 12, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs | block) protected T-Pain ‎ (libel concerns )''. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Please don't mass unprotect them without looking at each one. To save any duplication of work, I believe I've already sorted out all his protections of IP talk pages. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::The above mentioned one seems to be a result of typical (albeit persistent) school-boy vandalism. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Could I ask admins reviewing these protections, that, if they decide protection is still necessary, that they unprotect and then reprotect, with a rationale. This will ensure that editors will know why an article is protected, and that an active admin is listed as having done the protection. ] (]) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	*The way I see it, anything that's been semi'd for more than a year, and probably even more than say, 6 months, should be unprotected and no review would really be necessary. Am I wrong? –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	While I'm indifferent toward other pages, I do agree that articles should almost never be protected forever. However, before rushing to judgment, consider that the majority of these were probably protected prior to the new feature which allows an expiration date to be set, and/or before CSCWEM was aware of this feature. — ] 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I can help a little bit there. The expiry date feature debuted last April (so April 2007), so yes they were after that. I'm sure he was aware of the feature (an extra box on the protection page gets your attention), but I don't believe he ever used it (ever, I can't tell you why). So, the majority were done after expiry dates were added. -]<small>(])</small> 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::An examination of the older IP talk protections leaves little doubt about this. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	Concur with CharlotteWebb. I am hesitant to do a mass unprotect, but suggest that it be taken one article at a time. There are likely a few legitimate protections in there, to start; as well, if they've been on some form of protection for an extended period without complaint, then there is no rush to unprotect without a thorough review. I am willing to work on some of these starting later this evening. ] (]) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Fair enough. As long as we start looking into these, now that he isn't around to answer queries. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	I know of at least one page on my watchlist which has been indef-protected for eight months now, after going through *ten* separate protect/unprotect cycles in an 11 month period last year, and another that has been unprotected for a total of about five days since March 2007, for extreme BLP violations. If you are unprotecting a page, make sure that it's not a vandalism magnet. I know this would appear to be common-sense advice, but sometimes, the rush to unprotect everything overrides common sense, and it's why each page needs to be judged by a human, individually, rather than mass-reverted by an automated process. ''']''' <small>]</small> 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I've started reviewing his protection log starting with 1/1/08 and moving forward from there. While several of the articles I've encountered thusfar are heavily trafficked, and at least one was the target of a dedicated vandal, I haven't seen enough to justify indefinite semi-protection. I'm going to watchlist the more high-risk articles, just to monitor them for scurrilous activity. <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is not used to being the voice of reason</font></b> 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::While I won't name the pages (]), the first page I mentioned above has had its *talk* page vandalized by frustrated IP vandals who want to mess with the article; the second one was the subject of an arbitration case, and four of the ten top editors of the page have been indef-blocked or banned (although not all as a result of activities on that page). Neither of these pages were last protected by CSCWEM, but my concern still holds. Please look at the protection log before unprotecting anything, as even lightly trafficked pages can become much busier if they are unprotected. ''']''' <small>]</small> 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::To prevent duplication of effort, does anyone have a list of articles to review beyond just the protect log? Or, at least, a list of articles that have been reviewed? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Xeno says he has done IP talk pages, Caknuck is working on the list starting 1/1/08 and going forward. If you want, you can start with 31 Dec 07 and go backward, and then leave a message here when anyone stops and I will do whatever is left when I get to my other computer. ] (]) 21:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	A mass unprotect would not be the best way; some may still legitimately need protection. Case by case is the way to go. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	Just a couple comments here (and then I'll disappear from AN since I tend to avoid it). First, you need to look before 1/1/08. Like start at June 07 at least (yes, they go back that long). That's where all the very long term ones are. You can use too to find older ones. Just look at any bio articles, most of them are his. If someone wants me to look through them I can but it seems that people just end up mad when I jump in myself. (Ok, I'm disappearing now) -]<small>(])</small> 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I just picked 1/1/08 as a logical, but arbitrary starting point. I didn't know how many others would be joining in, so I figured declaring a starting point would be the wise thing to do to avoid duplication of work. <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is not used to being the voice of reason</font></b> 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I have finished checking the articles protected by CSCWEM between January and March. Has anybody started looking at the older ones? On a different note I left four pages with the indef protection on -- ], ], ] and ] -- due to histories of extensive vandalism and cycling between protection and unprotection. Feel free to comment on my choices below. <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is not used to being the voice of reason</font></b> 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I started with his oldest protections, back in April 2006, and got as far as completing June 5/06. There were a significant number of IP user and user talk pages in amongst these; protection has been lifted on all of them (I left move protection on the talk pages where it existed, it won't do any harm). I did not bother unprotecting deleted articles or redirects, as they are doing no harm as they are (most of them would qualify for CSD if they were recreated anyway). None of the protections he placed on currently existing articles were still in place, although some of the articles have been reprotected since then. I will continue tomorrow where I left off, although if someone else wants to continue from here, just leave a message in this thread to say where you have left off. ] (]) 05:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Smoking Gun article says Bruce Ivins frequently edited ] ==
	Just a heads up that the article may get more attention. Ever since I added some information in it about 6 months ago, I've had KKG watchlisted. I have not seen this ] mentioned in the ''Smoking Gun''. --] (]) 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:A quick look at shows that he was active on the talk page up until September, 2007 (His last three edits on Misplaced Pages were to that page), but his last edit to the article itself was in July, 2006. I suspect that that account will not be used any more, since there is a well-publicized investigation surrounding it. ''']''' <small>]</small> 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Oddly, no one from law enforcement seems to have asked for Jimmyflathead's IP address. Although if he gave out the yahoo address on the talk page , there would have been no need. Interesting connection. ] 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Are you nobody from law enforcement has made such a request? ] (]) 05:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yup, at least not back when it would have done any good. ] 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Apollo's Fire: The Cleveland Baroque Orchestra ==
	See: ]
	Why are we blocking users like this? Rather, why are we forcing them to jump through hoops after they've requested another username? I've been seeing this waaay to often, and I'm getting tired of the COI paranoia. I mean, hell, the guy didn't even do anything except try to add two pictures. This isn't some profit hungry organization, or controversial subject. They choose the name of their orchestra, for crying out loud. We've got admins discouraging them from having any connection with their article, when we could very much use their input in some form. They'd probably be too scared to even use the talk page. COI is something to be cautious about, but it is never grounds for declining a block request when there is no evidence of disruption. -- ] 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:And I don't mean to attack any admins, but rather, I want to challenge the mentality that is used when reviewing these blocks. We often start doing things for the right reasons, but after a while of handling routine requests we sometimes forget the underlying logic. -- ] 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	* I think people have conflated two issues: a blatant ] and a heavily promotional article, and a username issue. The two should be separated and can be without too much effort if people want to. We can deal with ] well enough, I think - although maybe not if the debate over ] and his serially reposted article on his website is anything to go by. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{resolved|Alright, enough joking around, go do some actual work now. Issue at hand is dealt with. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)}}
	She has been repeatedly adding unsourced information to multiple articles and has broken the 3RR. All of her edits are based around promoting the 'Anarchist International', an organization probably made up of only her and two or three other people. She seems to resist any form of reason and automatically assumes bad faith. She has never shown any sign of being anything but disruptive. I suggest she is blocked. ] (]) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Some context for the uninvolved:
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*
	:*]
	:]
	: : Four reversions in less than 24 hours by Anna Quist to restore the disputed content, while the RfC in which she was receiving no support was ongoing.
	:See ] for the efforts of several administrators to deal with this editor.
	:I think the community has been more than tolerant of and facilitating to this editor, and has gotten no useful encyclopedic content in return. She may or not be contributing in good faith, but is certainly disruptive and sapping the resources of editors, despite numerous counsels to reform. I concur with Zazaban above that all her edits seem to be promotional, and shows no sign of becoming a productive contributor. Anna Quist has been notified of this discussion. <font color="404040">]</font> 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	*] ] (]) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	*Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on ]. —]] 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	: She now appears to be using a sockpuppet to continue to revert to her version of the article. ] (]) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	===Response to block===
	{{bquote|1=Some ochlarchist/unscientifical administrator has blocked my account. This is a severe blow to libertarian research on wikipedia! Unblock me this instant we will be forced to try you at the International Anarchist Tribunal and you will be issued a brown card and be removed from the anarchist movement. The information I am adding is based on reliable independent third party sources, easily verifiable, and 100% according to Misplaced Pages's principle about verification. It confirms that the Northern sections of IFA-IAF exists 100%. This is no joke. The so called "anorg-warning you are linking to is totally unreliable and 100% a hoax, and is 100% rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . If my account is blocked, it is an attack on the truth and verification -- Anna Quist
	] }}
	<font color="404040">]</font> 23:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	: She put a similar one on my talk page as well. ] (]) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm debating between a reply of total disbelief, feigned shock and horror, or just outright sarcasm. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	::The IP address has been blocked, by the way. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I suppose I can expect my brown card in the mail. —]] 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::: May I go and add a sockpuppeteer template to Anna's userpage or does she have to be blocked indefinitely? ] (]) 23:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::: It might also be worth noting that the IP was also used by a rather rude troll on anarchism.net, a site that Anna has professed a a strong dislike to. ] (]) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:You gotta be fucking kidding me. '''International Anarchist Tribunal'''? Com'on. I consider myself in the "anarchist" category, but this is just hilarious. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::How would such a tribunal be organized? What rules would it follow? ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::That's the beauty, as anarchists, they wouldn't have rules nothing would ever happen. ] (]) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I wonder if that qualifies as a legal threat? But if they're anarchist, they have no laws, right...? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Look, this isn't that difficult to figure out. Anna Quist has been promoting her organization as a monolithic, international, logistically capable organization which is a '''''Serious Threat''''' to the establishment. In order to present this, "she" (assuming the user is female -- she claims to be, but she claims to be many things) has claimed to have been appointed the position of spokeswoman for the group by their "secretariat"; that the group's decisions and proclamations are well known to the international anarchist project, and that this is achieved through a high degree of "scientifical" objectivity in the realm of radical praxis that the degree to which an anarchist society is an "anarchy" can be determined mathematically; that it can properly judge what are non-anarchist organizations and promote "proper" anarchist organizations (the Industrail W.W. vs the International W.W.); that her organizations have sub-groups which in of themselves are substantial enough to be considered the largest of their kind in the realm of green and feminist anarchism; and that the group can claim a lineage going back to some of the oldest anarchist organizations. That she now claims that her organization is large enough to retain its own judiciary system and can "ban" individuals from the anarchist movement, and that this will be known widely enough that the shame will stick and mar that figure's reputation, is not any more laughable than any of her other assertions. She must maintain the image &ndash; to the end &ndash; that the Anarchist International is '''''Serious Business'''''. Why? Because only its "revolutionary" program, well founded in '''''science''''', and therefore objectivity, can firmly unite and guide the international urban proletariat towards '''''The Revolution ™'''''. Those brown cards will mark us all as counter revolutionaries and we '''''will''''' be lined up against the wall when the firing squads are primed on the day '''''The Revolution ™''''' succeeds.
	::::Can't you call see? This is a madness bred from taking yourself and your politics too seriously. Instead of suffering "activist burnout" and disappearing, or becoming a sell out, or getting sent to jail, or any number of fates that tend to befall anarchists, she has taken the extreme step towards a more "serious" revolution. However, because there were no large organizations to satisfy her, she populated her world with fictional secretariats and tribunals. There doesn't need to be an explanation for how an Anarchist Tribunal would work, who staffs it, what laws it enforces, and under who's authority it sends out brown cards. This is the world view Anna Quist has built up for herself, and banning the world view from Misplaced Pages is a tangible threat to her anarchist revolution. Madness.--] (]) 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Hmmm. You do know that you're responding with vehemence to sarcasm and joking, right? ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 06:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Don't worry. My sarcasm has just a bit more bite to it. But wow, ya'know?--] (]) 07:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, to be honest, I think you need to be a bit careful over your response to this situation. You do realise, don't you, that by continuing to address this situation with anything less than the gravity which it merits you're rapidly aligning yourself with the counter-anarchic Walesian neo-authoritarian clique, typical of the treacherous post-Godwin-esque rule of law that's been imposed on an unknowing proletariate by a persistent tyrannical oligarchy perpetuated by totalitarian methods of repression and deception to hide the fact that in the background the neo-New World Order is being controlled by the secretive behind-the-scenes manoevring of an arch-Blairite-Bushite faction? <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::A brown card? Is that the thing you get when you run out of toilet paper? ] ] 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, that's a brown ''hand''. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::What? No ''running dogs of capitalism''? ] (]) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	Seriously, though, I only just got the pun inherent in her name. How slow is that? <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Faster than me. Oy! ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	===I never wrote this note===
	I never wrote this note. Someone has been setting me up!!!~(] (]) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
	:It must be a really good imitator. On August 6, you get blocked at 23:05 and then that IP at 23:09 reverts to your version of the article using the same words you always use and makes at 23:12 a comment on the talk page that copy/pastes one of the last comments that you did on your account before being blocked . --] (]) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	We need your help! MOTD has been running for over two years, as an informal project publishing a daily unofficial Misplaced Pages motto each day through the {{tl|MOTD}} templates. It's intended to be a way to gather the Misplaced Pages community together to a common purpose and help portray our mission through a often clever or witty phrase. Unfortunately, activity in the project has started to drop of late, and we only have mottos scheduled for the next week. For this project to run smoothly, we need plenty of original suggestions from editors like you, as well as people to comment on existing suggestions, close old discussions, and schedule approved mottos. It's a great way to take a break from your run-of-the-mill editing, and you may learn something about Misplaced Pages in the process. Please stop by ] and take a look around. If you have any questions, please post below, on our project's talk page, or ]. Thanks for your time, and happy editing as always. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	: Have you tried ]? ]] 06:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:: For some reason I couldn't find that yesterday. Thank you. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Can someone please close a move request? ==
	Yeah, it's a formality, but at ] we've had a ridiculously large discussion on moving the page that seems to have devolved into "no consensus". (This is because there's, well, no consensus. In fact, most everyone involved realized yesterday we had no chance at getting any sort of consensus.) Could an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion officially? ] ] ] 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Holy crap. It took me five minutes just to figure out where that all started. Anyway, it's closed, hopefully if that gets brought up again it'll be less cluttered. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	], an arbcom probation article, had seen massive changes by a single editor, ], without any sort of consensus on the talk page. He replaced most of the article with POV statements and puts undue weight on reports such as the Schechthe report and in general put the article in worse shape than before. In fact these changes are against the consensus on the ], and I have left a warning and more comprehensive reason on why his edits are disruptive on ] but he had been oblivious to them. I have tried to revert the article back to its original condition but had been reverted by user:Dilip rajeev and an IP editor, whom I suspect to be also user:Dilip rajeev. I suggest a temporary block on user:Dilip rajeev and semi-protection on ] to stop the inflow of non-consensus edits, to make time for analysing his edits and create a consensus on which additions to include to ensure the NPOV nature of the article. Do correct me if I'm in the wrong place for this though. --]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup> 08:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I have executed a 48 block on the Dilip rajeev account, and given my on the users talkpage. I have not semi protected the article, as I hope the current editors can revert any vandalism while allowing good ip edits; if the ip "vandal" edits increase sprotection may be considered again (and perhaps a SSP report). I trust that editors will engage with Dilip rajeev, rather than blindly revert the edits, and see if any concerns might be better addressed. <small>If this isn't the right place to bring this matter, you seem to have got lucky...</small> 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC) {{unsigned|LessHeard vanU}}
	== Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban ==
	It seems only a short time ago that we were discussing it, but the issue of {{user|Wilhelmina Will}} has to be raised again. The background to this is that {{user|Blechnic}} called for this ban based on discovered copyright violations, the worsening of articles to make them meet the requirements of DYK, etc. Accordingly a discussion was held .<br/>
	When Wilhelmina appeared to ignore the ban, it came up again , where I realised that, since WW refused to engage the community at the noticeboard, to assume good faith would be to assume that she hadn't noticed. I thus notified her, and closed the request, despite some protestations by Blechnic on my talk.<br/>
	This led Abd to regard me as the "responsible party" for the ban - I accepted that I had effectively closed the discussion, and thus could be regarded as "responsible", which I did principally to give Abd a point of contact since he seems to have styled himself as WW's advocate in these matters (see her talk page and archives, and for examples). Subsequently, Abd has decided that the community consensus was illegitimate because the evidence the community used did not exist. He consequently believes that ''I'' should overturn the topic ban. Now despite my naturally high opinion of myself I felt that I can't undo what I believe was the will of the community. I therefore invite another admin to check whether my judgement of community consensus at the first discussion was correct, although some editors seemed to agree.<br />
	Furthermore, there is the question of when the topic ban may be overturned. I believe the consensus was along the lines of ''There exists a DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves''. I have invited, on her talkpage and through Abd for her to give me such an assurance that I could bring to the community and say "there it is", but no such assurance has yet to be received.
	I defer re-assessment of my closing arguments to other admins, and the latter question (once again) to the community at large, since my judgement has been repeatedly called into question on my talkpage, and for all I know, I may very well be wrong. ] (]) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:From a review of the above, I would suggest that a topic ban consensus was very apparent and that the subsequent discussion was properly closed once Wilhelmina Will had been advised of the ban and invited to participate in the discussion of its implementation. I feel the argument that the ban is invalid because there is no determined time period is hollow; the editor is topic banned until such time the editor engages with the community with regard to the concerns raised - at that point the appropriate period (if any) before the editor can be allowed to contribute to DYK nominations can be determined. It appears that Abd's conclusions and requests are driven by considerations other than policy interpretation and application of the communities consensus, and are not shared by the majority. I see no reason to vary the sanctions on Wilhelmina Will's account until such time as Wilhemina Will starts a dialogue with those who have expressed concerns regarding her editing. ] (]) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Agree with LHvU - until and unless Wilhelmina Will makes an assurance the poor behaviour will cease (even accepting the behaviour WAS poor would be a start), the topic ban must remain. ] ] 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::In fairness to Abd, he appears to now be contending that the consensus was flawed, and thus my close showed a "lack of wisdom" (or words to that effect) because there '''was''' no problem to begin with. He says that there is no evidence of copyvios and so the topic ban is an error that I should not have made. I'd paste the discussion over here, but it's pretty lengthy - it's at the bottom of my talk page. ] (]) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::His is, and was then, a singular viewpoint. A lot of people apparently reviewed the evidence and concluded there was a problem. You did not make a decision, you enacted one made by the community. Perhaps Abd might consider that when they are the singular voice against the majority, then it may be them who is wrong. ] (]) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for that - I didn't want to be accused of forcing bias in a response by not presenting the facts of his argument. ] (]) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I have now commented on your talkpage that Abd should bring his concerns regarding the basis on which consensus for a topic ban was created back to the community which expressed it, and not on the page of the admin that enacted it. ] (]) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Thanks very much for that, LHvU ] (]) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Fritz, I also agree your reading of the consensus was entirely correct. I was considering closing that topic ban discussion myself and I would have closed it exactly the same way. As others have said, if Wilhelmina Will wants the ban overturned, she needs to engage with the community. ] 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks, Sarah. I figured my first AN/I close was probably worth checking ] (]) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:This was an obvious one. Fritzpoll divined consensus (and an overwhelming one) rightly, and until and unless WW engages with either Fritz personally, or the wider community with regards to the topic ban, it should stay. ]]] 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	== BKLisenbee and Opiumjones 23 topic ban, redux ==
	On July 25, ] proposed a for ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) and ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]). There were no objections before the text was archived, so I am working under the assumption that the topic ban is effective as of the time FayssalF posted it. The edit warring in question has continued, with edits directly from the BKLisenbee account (, , etc.), along with anonymous edits that I suspect were made by, or on behalf of, Opiumjones 23 e.g. reminding BKLisenbee about the topic ban (, ) along with ] edit summaries (). FayssalF has described a troubling conflict of interest on the part of both users. Furthermore, both appear to be ] (i.e. centered around a group of articles having to do with Beat Generation and related figures in Morocco). I've seen this go on for a couple years, and FayssalF, who has tried to mediate this all along, must have infinite patience or some unspecified reason for not simply blocking these two accounts and being done with it. I'm blocking both users indefinitely: given the continual COI, SPA, and edit warring, I don't see what else these editors are contributing to the encyclopedia other than their quarreling over a certain set of articles. -- ] ] 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	: Opiumjones 23's block has been lifted, as checkuser evidence points to BKLisenbee as the culprit, evidently an attempt at a frame-up (, ). Previously, BKLisenbee had insisted that as long as he is to be blocked, then both ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) and Opiumjones 23 should be as well. PiCo, for what it's worth, has made Misplaced Pages edits across a range of topics outside those included in this ban. -- ] ] 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:There has been one main reason why I never blocked both accounts indefinitely...
	:* They are the only accounts with major edits (90%?) at all the concerned articles. We have had some similar situations. If you block the ''only'' existing editors of a disputed article then you'd risk ending up with a biased, an advert article or some BLP violations. The articles may need a review from third parties but without the help of these accounts nothing can be reached. They are the main people who know all details about the topics in question. The problem is that nobody cares much about the topics they edit. I have asked for help many times using multiple noticeboards but there has been little interest.
	: My topic ban was meant to encourage discussions at talk pages. They had already agreed to all the requirements and conditions I proposed a few months ago. I assume part of the responsability in this mess. I have been quite busy, for a few months -- both on and off-wiki, and that probably caused the failure of the plan agreed by all parties. I am less busy nowadays and I suggest a conditional unblock:
	:* Participation will be limited to bringing reliable sources for questionable and disputed edits to talk pages for a review. I'll post a notice at the WikiProject Music talk page and noticeboard and hope some people would be interested in reviewing the articles. In case there would be no people interested then I can do that myself as they had already agreed to it. You can help, Gyrofrog. And of course, no personal attacks (inappropriate conduct and name calling) otherwise we'll be obliged to block the offender and communications would become limited to e-mail. -- ] / <small>]</small> 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Fayssal, I don't see how ''you'' are responsible for any of this mess. I understand your point about why you would allow their continued participation, at the same time there is an obvious COI on the part of both editors, and as each seems to have such a big personal stake in the outcome I don't see how this could possibly lead to ''less''-biased articles. This is further complicated by the checkuser results that Hersfold has reported, I can't think of any good reason to unblock BKLisinbee, nor can I see any good faith behind such actions. In any case, I don't think it's right that, thus far, you've shouldered the responsibility for mediating this all along. It was obvious that the two had exhausted your patience if not the community's. Thanks, -- ] ] 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	Since my name has been mentioned I'd like to add a comment - though I'm not sure I'm really allowed to, as a non-admin. Anyway, for what it's worth: yes, I've been editing the ] article lately, and it's turned into an edit war with BKLisinbee. This is because ''any'' attempt to edit that page in a way BKLisinbee doesn't like results in a reversion - he believes he owns the page. What I've been doing is trying to protect an edit or group of edits reached in a rare period when a whole group of editors were present, and none of them were BKLisinbee. Those editors were the gay mafia - yes, they do exist - and they were trying to insert justification for including Bowles in their favourite category, gay and lesbian writers. To help them out, I added a section on Bowles' achievement, which was previously lacking. Personally, I think a writer's sexuality should only be mentioned should only be mentioned if and as it's relevant to his achievement. Bowles' sexuality was pretty marginal to his career as writer and musician - only one short story deals with gay sex, out of a pretty big oeuvre. But it's also a fact that that story is frequently anthologised in gay collections, and that's notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, IMO. BKLisinbee, however, is on a mission to whitewash Bowles' reputation - he won't have anything that paints the Master as anything other than a red-blooded heterosexual. The facts don't seem to bear him out - Bowles' obituary in the BBC website, for example, explicitly mentions his homosexuality. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't mention this in passing, although I don't want to allow it to dominate the article. ] (]) 10:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	: While any edit warring is discouraged, the dispute you have with BKLisinbee appears to be separate from the one between him and Opiumjones 23, and my impression is that you are ''not'' affected by the topic ban (in which Fayssal did not mention your name, anyway). You don't seem to have the same personal stake in these articles that the others do, your contributions are across a range of subjects (and that was the point of my mentioning you, sorry this wasn't clear). Thanks, -- ] ] 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	== Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard ==
	This has been a long drawn out discussion, with a few back and forths of the ad hominem nature, however, ], who has dished a few personal attacks out on the page, and acted generally poorly regarding ] and ], in his latest act has overstepped the mark in my opinion. In response to his post , I made that he clarify the meaning of the last part or strike it out, as another veiled personal attack on his opponents in general. His chosen reply was not to do either, but to . I think this is a clear indication that this user has no respect for anybody on that page that does not agree with the consensus he thinks is present and is enforcing, whereas incidentally by this ] there is clearly none to enforce. I would have warned first before coming here, but the nature of the response and his talk page/other actions in general make me think that would be a waste of my time. I will of course notify him of this request though. ] (]) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Additional instances: he calls an user ]'s contribution "farce" and he gives wikilink to make a point against me. Though it may not be a serious breach of ] guidelines, it does not help much in a tensely debated talk page. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	: I suggest a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do. MickMacNee has been strongly pushing a POV which is unsustainable on the sources on the article, together with one or two other editors. Skyring, who I don't usually find myself defending, has been defending NPOV and RS on that article. ] 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	** I would like to support ] in this instance. He is merely responding to strong POV from ]. ]'s actions in this edit war have been uncharacteristically dubious. --] (]) 01:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I am not so sure. The issue is not yet resolved. So, we still dont know who is pushing for POV. Anybody who make a decision should do so after reading the talk page in detail. In my feeling, we are about to rech a consensus. Finally even if one assumes MickMacNee is pushing for POV, it does not justify personal attacks. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is an ''admin'' noticeboard. Things are posted here if there is something that admins are needed to do. In this case, it's a petty content dispute on a talk page. ] 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	*I would really appreciate the views of non-involved (and probably non Australian) admins. I note quite a few people (not just Surturz) have referred to my ''actions in this edit war have been uncharacteristically dubious'' <small>(actually the uncharacteristically is an uncharacteristic positive touch :-) )</small>. I would observe however that Orderinchaos is an involved admin/editor in this case. I think it inappropriate that he call for ''a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do''. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::If I was trying to imply I was neutral, I would have closed it myself. Matilda's own actions in adding a policy-violating piece of text to a high-visibility article with an already problematic editing environment, then edit warring over it, then reporting her opponents for a block - all of which has created major drama and managed to unite large sections of the two usually opposing factions on the article against such inexplicable behaviour, have (and I note somewhat sadly) significantly reduced my opinion of someone who I have historically held in very high esteem indeed. I am disappointed to have to criticise her in a public place, especially since I suggested to an RfC on the topic recently that no further censure of her actions was required or helpful, but her sheer persistence and her refusal to accept she was wrong and her support of pure trolls on the article talk page makes it necessary. ] 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::It is not yet decided whether the text violates any policy. We are currently working on a non-violating text. ] has stated himself that it is not a violation of BLP issue. You can see that . I accidentally entered the article and was appalled by how badly some editors including Matilda were treated. You could see the evidences above. The issues are being discussed in detail in the talk page and we are about to reach a consensus. We are trying to reach consensus edit which does not violate any wikipedia policy. I really support Matilda's idea of a non-Australian editor. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Agreed - I never suggested this particular text violated BLP. Please stop ]. ] 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Then, what is the problem if Matilda says the same? How do you justify personal attacks against her and other editors? I will wait for a neutral admin. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I have not personally attacked anyone. I think sometimes AGF is misunderstood - it certainly does not mean we are not allowed to call people out when they act against the interests of the encyclopaedia (whether that be their intention or not) - at the end of the day we are expected at all times to do whatever it takes to improve the encyclopaedia. Otherwise we would never be able to block vandals because we would be accused of not be assuming good faith of them. Another very good example is conflict of interest, where we basically say that someone is either unable or severely limited in their ability to approach the topic or edit with the detachment required by an academically rigorous process, due to either an investment in the topic or a strong ideological commitment to a particular point of view. ] 03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think what might be best is to put this page under community probation. The poor behaviour on that page has been going on for way too long and creeps out onto other pages and it's just too time-consuming for the community to constantly have to deal with these disputes which are always basically the same just over different content. Despite warnings and various users being blocked over the last year the page has not improved but rather got worse if anything. I tried previously to help on this page as an administrator but I gave up like most others due to the never ending partisan POV-pushing and disgraceful behaviour all round. So I have not been involved with these content disputes but I have been watching it and unfortunately I share Orderinchaos's concerns about some of Matilda's actions on this page. In addition to what OIC has outlined, in a blatant conflict of interest, Matilda blocked an alternate account being being used to write an RFC about herself, rather than reporting it and allowing another administrator to do it for her. I have a lot of respect for Matilda but I am quite concerned that she has become so involved that she has compromised herself and should not be using her tools at all in regard to this page or any of these users. I am also concerned about the general activities going on on the John Howard page and I really think it's time to do what some of us have been discussing for some time now and either take it to arbitration or put it under community sanctions. ] 03:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Sarah: You may be right. I dont know about Matilda's past actions. But as of now, I couldnt find anything disputable. Therefore, as an editor already involved in the article and as an Australian, I guess you shouldnt have commented. Your comment will now prevent other uninvolved administrators from commenting because they might not want to differ with you. This is despite the plea she made for a non-Australian admin. I am quite disappointed. But, what is your opinion on the personal attacks anyway. I guess no action good or bad should justify personal attacks? <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 04:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The personal attacks are not confined to one direction or one person. I largely agree with Barneca's comment on his/her talk page. ] 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not involved with the article. I haven't touched the article since early December last year and I haven't touched the article's talk page for months. I am not and have not been involved in any of these content disputes. I am only aware of what has been happening because of various complaints made to this noticeboard and ANI and other pages on my watchlist. Other administrators will feel free to comment as they so desire and if they don't feel they can comment because I have commented then they shouldn't be administrators. Anyone can comment, including Australians. ] 04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Sorry Sarah for assuming you were involved. My sincere apologies.<FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 04:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Well, there is no conflict of interest in my case. I am not from Australia and I dont live there and I dont belong to any parties in Australia. Maybe it will be helpful if the ones who belong to parties stay away due to ]. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I have no problems with people from parties editing so long as they edit encyclopaedically. As I told a newspaper a few weeks ago when they asked me, we view edit''ing'' as the problem, not edit''ors'' - although inevitably, some editors will be more problematic than others, but in terms of who they are in the real world, we're not terribly particular as long as they edit appropriately. This particular issue, as an aside, actually has very little to do with party politics in Australia, as supporters of all four major parties on the article have opposed its inclusion, and as the media isn't talking about it (given that it's only of marginal activist interest) comments from Labor and Liberal identities are not to be found anywhere. ] 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::I am impressed to know that you know who belongs to which party. I would be curious to know if there is no privacy issues. I however cant hide my surprise to learn that wikipedia is really politicised. Again, editors oppose the edit as it was initially suggested to be included. Let me be honest with you, I have no confidence whatsoever that the edit will get the consensus as it was initially included. Well, Isnt that why we are trying to get a consensus edit which everyone will approve of! I hope you have no problem in doing that. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 03:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::One year and more of ongoing disputes on that article tends to bring out who follows which, also some state it openly on their userpages/userboxes. I originally entered the situation as an uninvolved administrator, but noone ends up uninvolved there for long. Also, ] (an article subject to similar levels of intense dispute over a prolonged period, with many of the same people involved) and ] disputes tend to interplay into each other - it's the Australian politics project's ''only'' serious problem area - most are ignored for the most part, such as the Western Australian political topics I'm trying to whip into shape before the coming election which just got announced yesterday for a month's time, including eliminating copyvio in over 50 articles. My attitude to this dispute is - I am not going to forego Misplaced Pages policies just to keep someone happy. We are not going to add crap to articles. If, however, something is reliably sourced and does not require any synthesis, then I will support it so long as it does not distort the article (which is already doing things that would be beyond most gymnasts as it is). ] 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Docku, I don't mean to be rude at all and you're welcome to discuss partisanship and such with orderinchaos on your talk page but can I ask that you post elsewhere about anything that does not require administrative attention. By filling up this section you are making it increasingly unlikely that uninvolved administrators will be willing to wade through all this and then investigate the opening complaint. ] 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I was going to suggest it myself. Somehow got lost in discussion. Need to sleep anyway. I hope you will remind Orderinchaos as well.:) <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	===Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard : reply from Matilda===
	As my name has been mentioned several times above in this discussion I have chosen to respond. The article talk page has a current RfC which mainly deals with my conduct. I think calling for uninvolved admins has merit - particularly because there are significant wikiquette issues on that page.
	I made no admin actions in relation to Skyring and the edits at {{article|John Howard}} that I am aware of, other than the blocks of no longer necessary (in his view and my view) sockpuppet accounts which I discuss further below. I reported Skyring for 3RR reversion - I did not block - I am not sure why my report is considered inappropriate I have stated elsewhere I will report any violation of 3RR promptly - and have done so in the past. I am also not sure why I am being judged for Ed Johnston's decision (not in this thread but elsewhere) - his decision not mine and I don't believe I mislead him with any information in my report.
	Gnangarra and others object to my two times reversion of Skyring and it has been alleged that I "goaded" Skyring into a 3RR breach. Firstly they (OiC and Gnangarra) have very strongly failed to assume good faith - I will assert again that I had no intention of goading Skyring. Gnangarra seeks to for all to abide by ] - in particular in relation to the John Howard article. While I think the idea has merit - he spoke to me about that after my two time reversion and I was operating on <3RR - I don't see two times reversion as edit warring - I am not trying to be a wikilawyer - that is what the policy says and to assert otherwise as Skyring (supported by OiC, Gnangarra and others) is not in my view justified.
	I observed Skyring was using sock puppets to disguise his editing. I raised the matter with him - as I see it I had a legitimate interest in seeing whether he was drafting his RfC (and to call that interest stalking is in my view inappropriate) but in fact I didn't search for it, I found his editing quite by accident and it gave me a very nasty turn to find my username linked to his sandbox when I knew he hadn't edited there in the last week or so. He responded - not in my view satisfactorily - but I left him to it. '''Once he had completed the RfC''' I tagged the accounts as sockpuppets - he has used sockpuppets quite frequently in the apst and they have not under any circumstances been regarded as compliant with policy. I noted the tag said "and blocked indefinitely" and I blocked them. I did not escalate to an uninvolved admin as I did not wish to escalate the issue at all. Inadvertently on my part the autoblock function blocked one of the IP addresses he used - but not the other. Skyring raised the matter at ]. I note that others thought the sockpuppetry on Skyring's part was not a breach of policy - though I cannot see the allowance of it at ]. Moreover the admin who made that comment said to Skyring ''I don't think the accounts violated policy, but I meant what I said on the ANI thread; I think it would have been wiser not to have created them, due to your past issues''. I noted also advice from Shotinfo ''Matilda, in all honesty, you should have taken this to AN/I to have an uninvolved admin act on the information rather than unilaterally act on it yourself.'' . Sarah said at ANI (and I didn't see until today because her comment was more than 10 hours after I had left my comment) ''Matilda, can I suggest that perhaps it might be best to ask someone else to block the accounts in this sort of situation in future? You blocking an account being used to build an RFC against yourself could be seen to be a tremendous COI and thus a misuse of the tools.'' She has reiterated that statement in this thread again above, and it is in part in reponse to her that I have decided to reply here. As far as I was concerned the account was no longer in use as the RfC had been lodged. Skyring had been warned that I regarded his account as an illegitimate sockpuppet account and as far as I understand he had no difficulty with the block, merely the inadvertant and unintended consequences of the block. I had chosen not to report him for sockpuppetry - after all the message I received was reporting Skyring was not OK - as I saw it at the time I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't. I note and will follow in future the advice to the contrary.
	I am very concerned that Orderinchaos repeatedly suggests (including suggesting in this discussion) that editors not previously involved should not / need not be participating in the discussion , or those that are recently arrived have some improper motive - I disagree strongly that limiting the number of editors involved will help. Specifically outside editors have in effect been invited to the page and to give their views by the BLP notice and the RfC.
			== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
	] states ''while correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, the title of "administrator" is not a big deal'' . ] gives some quite specific guidelines - including the prefacing caveat ''Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters'' . The RfC on Talk:John Howard raised by Skyring is allegedly about policy - in reality it is about my conduct. Gnangarra and Orderinchaos by endorsing Skyring's RfC have called into question my conduct as an admin - and moreover they have done so elsewhere (for example OIC has repeated that assertion in this discussion above).
			{{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.
	At ] it states ''In case of problems administrators have the exact same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason'' ... I thought by taking a wikibreak I would allow the situation to de-escalate - it didn't : - or at least not in a way I found acceptable. Following the advice on ] , I have emailed OTRS for confidential advice - that email was more than two days ago and as at this morning <small>(in Australia)</small> I had not heard back :-( <small>(Note I only have intermittent access to my email)</small>
			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 ].
	In conclusion then - I am seeking advice - I undertake to heed any guidance offered. I would really appreciate univolved non-Australian admins reviewing the situation - there is an outstanding policy RfC to focus on if nothing else and also the article has been raised at the BLP noticeboard. Why non-Australian - because the Australians have all worked with all of us before and have been watching and therefore do not come without prejudice notwithstanding their lack of editing of the article or on the talk page. I am looking for somebody who has not looked at it before to come and see.
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	Just for the record I have no political allegiance (Orderinchaos infers above that many regular editors on the page do but does not clarify who and what allegiance). --] <sup>]</sup> 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
	: As I've been named above - I don't need to clarify who has what allegiances, as firstly it's well known amongst the editors on that page (and FTR I never suggested you had one), secondly just because I know doesn't necessarily mean they want me to spill it all over the page in one place, and thirdly it may just fuel the trolling which is taking place there right now. I have no problem with your conduct generally - like I've said on at least three occasions now, I think you're one of the better admins on the Australian project, and it saddens me to end up on the other side from you, but your actions and choices have left me with no choice. Thirdly, as an admin I have a duty, as do all admins, of upholding and enforcing policy. When a group of clearly organised editors arrive on the page out of nowhere on the day a dispute arises which did not arise by natural means on the page, and engage in far-left activism, and on investigating a couple of the editors I find ''serious problems'' with their history which I have had to make other admins aware of (anyone who wants to know more about that is free to contact me for details), I would not be doing my job if I did not oppose it in the strongest terms and stick up for core Misplaced Pages policy. ] 07:25, 8 August 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."
			* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
			* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
			* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
			* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
			* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
			* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
			* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
			** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
			* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
			* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
	:::Well, Orderinchaos, if you are talking about my history being questionable. I would like to have a copy of the report you are willing to share with anyone? <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	::I have no idea where these ''clearly organised editors'' have arrived from - I did not solicit their presence, I am unaware of any problems with them and I have taken their comments and conduct at face value - I have not investigated further. I believe it has confused the talk page discussion that OiC has had those discussions with them on that page (at least in part)instead of on their respective talk pages. If the article talk page focussed lss on conduct and more on content we would be much better off. </br> A user has made a suggestion concerning formatting of comments on the talk page (opt in) which I thought was very useful - unfortunately using <nowiki><small>...</small></nowiki> tags makes it unreadable for some so that bright idea will have to be reconfigured somehow. The principle however of concentrating on content not conduct would limit the personal attacks, whether real or perceived and probably lead to faster article improvement.--] <sup>]</sup> 07:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
	:::I think the main problem we have is noone there is actually looking to improve the article. The vast majority of editors are protecting it from one incidence of irresponsible conduct after another, which does not promote improvement as it reinforces a current deficient form of it simply because it does not contain the relevant addition, and of course the users engaging in that conduct are not at all interested in the article and more whatever trivial point or grievance they wish to have aired within it. In the end it's the article that suffers, not whichever side loses. This has been going on for more than a year, I even wrote an essay about it a month or so ago but haven't had time to post it in my userspace yet. ] 10:31, 8 August 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.}}
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
			* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
			---
	::::I came to the article after adding the 9/11 evac section, thuis putting it on my watchlist, where I watched this edit war unfold with some dodgy reasoning being made to justify removal of sourced content. If orderinchaos wants to use that fact as a reason to make all sorts of accusations and insinuations about me because of it, well he clearly will. ] (]) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
			* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
			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)
	:Matilda, I'm not sure what you're looking for at OTRS as I haven't looked up your email, but OTRS generally does not get involved in on-Wiki content disputes, instead referring users back to traditional dispute resolution and it is likely for this reason that you have not yet had a reply. Further, you should probably be aware that OIC, Gnangarra, myself, and many other Australians are on the OTRS team. ] 08:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I would expect that Australians would proabably recognise my email address and would stay away. At ] it states ''contact the Arbitration Committee or OTRS if needed''. I chose to do that and am disappointed not to have had the support I was seeking, notwithstanding I acknowledge the support is given by volunteers who are not obliged to do anything. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Fair enough. It just seemed fair and right to tell you that we work there. ] 08:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm not trying to be obtuse so apologies if it seems that way, but can I ask who is harassing you and where? With regards to the RFC you mentioned in the above extended statement, I don't think the RFC really belongs there on the John Howard talk page. The stuff about you should be moved to user conduct RFC or a user talk page or someplace but the issue of content is okay there. I'm assuming Peter posted it though because you kept asking him to do so. I didn't really get the impression it was something he was otherwise all that keen on doing. ] 10:21, 8 August 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)
	*'''response to Matilda''' since I have been specifically mentioned, in endorsing the RFC I said that ''I endorse Skyrings reasonings as laid out, the BLP issues are justified and his action were within the guidelines of BLP. The admin that blocked him for 24 hours should have applied that to all edit warring parties equally<small></small>...Matilda as an admin should never have reverted Skyring twice she has experience(community trust) to realise that it was inflamming the situation. The correct course of action would have been to request the article be protected until the issue was resolved on the talk page, WP:RFPP not WP:3RR.''. After the block occurred I contacted Matilda directly via email and made some comments there over her actions as an editor, noting that as "an admin with her experience" she should have realised that her actions in reverting were inflamming the situation. A couple of days later I was also approached on my talk to comment about two edits made by Skyring and explain BLP and UNDUE concerns, one I was asked if it was a PA the other whether it was inline with WP:TALK. In response to the PA I said ''I presume your talking about the specific comment on Matilda's editing<small>(Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce.)</small>, in short that to me wasnt a personal attack its more an olive branch to move the discussion along. Matilda did make a couple of questionable admin actions in relation to Skyring these should have been left to outside parties to address'' the action was in relation to the blocking of the alternative account and calling it a sock, again the action wasnt helping to defuse the situation. <br/> The discussion has since moved on the original text and source that was the point contention are not being used because of the BLP/UNDUE concerns raised. As I said when endorsing the RFC I think the best result for the article is for all editors to be restricted to 1R for 12 months, which is the normal ARBCOM ruling for similar contentious subjects. ]] 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I would support 1RR and a civility parole. Something like ] would probably be very helpful. ] 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			Reposted above from archive, see ]
	:::I support Sarah's suggestion wholeheartedly. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	'''Summary''' I agree that Matilda should not have unilaterally blocked the sockpuppets of ] but rather sought the advice of some uninvolved editors. Everyone makes mistakes and I am sure every wikipedian here must have made some type of mistake at some point of time during their wikipedia career, it is only natural as human beings. I guess Matilda was reminded of her actions and to refer to that one instance over and over again and blow it out of proportions only embarass her and is not going to be helpful. I feel like she is being pushed to the wall and we all know that people have difficulty responding positively when they feel that way. We all need to forget the past, forgive her and move on. Now, none of Matilda's past actions justify any of the personal attacks by anyone and therefore I hope some neutral administrator (preferably a non-Australian as Matilda requested) will look at the personal attack complaint noted in the first paragraph in this thread and will respond in an appropriate way. Thanks. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	: While ''personal attacks'' are never justified, ''reasonable questioning of actions'' is expected and not to be discouraged at all. It's only in questioning actions that in some cases one becomes aware that what one has done is not in accordance with community norms. As an administrator of 17 months standing myself, I've been questioned plenty of times, and on some of those occasions have realised from the vantage point of what amounts to a third opinion that I was wrong and conceded or made some effort to rectify my actions. In my opinion, wantonly lighting a fire in a flammable area then denying all responsibility while the inferno burns is very serious behaviour, and so out of character in my long experience of the individual's behaviour that, as I said to one of their uninvolved supporters by email, I really hope this proves to be an isolated incident. ] 20:15, 8 August 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)
	===Response from Skyring===
			:::::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'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it. Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable. I think admin Matilda made some serious errors, not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing. The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption. Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant. There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction.
			:::::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)
	I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material.
			:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
			::::* To who would this be a threat?
			::::* Which law?
			::::* In which country?
			::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
			::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
			::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
			::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
			::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls. --] (]) 14:21, 8 August 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)
	:Here is a demonstration of what we are talking about. When you say you resisted feeding the trolls, you intend to mean that someone was trolling. As far as I remember, I was one of the persons involved in talk page discussion in the past few days and that makes me assume that you call me a troll. Anybody who can have a cursory look at the talk page can find out that I am trying to get a consensus. In fact I am very happy that both Orderinchaos and Surtuz have agreed that including Mahathir's comments are acceptable to them. You can see that and . While I am genuinely trying to get a consensus, calling me a troll is not helpful. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 17:08, 8 August 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)
	::To reply specificaly to this post from Skring,
			*: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)
	::"I'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it." - i.e. others are not listening to your political viewpoint that the contested edit is a political stunt from Howrad's enemies, and as such should not be allowed in the article. End of discussion apparently.
			*::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)
	::"Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable." - i.e. agreement was reached by less than 5 editors, who by virtue of having had disputes between themselves in the past, and being 'regulars' on the article, their decision trumps any other 'new' (i.e. automatically suspicious) opinion. There was a quite irrevelant discussion about everbody's stated political affiliation and comments over external factors and who thought what about Howard/the action group in question, but frankly, precious little attempt to defend the other side as the recognised way to test their reasoning about the specific text with regards neutrality, objectivity, relevance and meeting BLP,RS etc.
			* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
	::"I think admin Matilda made some serious errors" - and you have not let up on the personal attacks against her to show it, in addition to launch what was supposed to be a content Rfc but was essentially, a user Rfc, placed on an article talk page (that everyone had to suspend discussion to wait for you while it was prepared offline in your own time)
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	::"not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing." A BLP notification at which you persistently ignored repeated posts that is was not a BLP issue subject to ignoring 3RR. You were subsequently blocked.
			{{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)
	::"The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption." - discussion is not disruption. Asking you to stop personal attacks is not disruption. Talking on the talk page after the issue is resolved in your miond is not disruption.
			::* 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.
	::"Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant." - as has your personal attacks and insinuations against them. With your posts you are attemtping to deter new editors by ] the article.
			:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{ab}}
			*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
	::"There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction." - Your continued statement of having consensus is untrue, see the survey (currently 4-5 in your favour). This is not consensus. Your only response to this was to attack the taking of a survey, and repeat that there is consensus.
			*{{userlinks|Oct13}}
			A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::"I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material." - Your suggestion of 1RR was almost universally rejected, showing just how far out your assesment of the situation is.
			:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::"As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls." - there does seem to be a background issue with australian articles affecting your conduct at this article, frankly, that's no excuse, and of no interest to the people on that page. (until you use it as a blanket justification to act as described in the original complaint here) ] (]) 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::See what I mean? misrepresentation the whole way, in the hopes that I or someone else will bite. I don't know how my accurate comments that "there was never a consensus for inclusion" could genuinely be understood to read "your continued statement of having consensus is untrue". Ooops. I bit. --] (]) 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	Looking further at the comments above, I find that I am continually misrepresented. For example, I am accused of calling ]'s contribution "farce". The link given shows nothing of the sort. I said "Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce." This whole thing is a farce, a battle over trivia, and I hope that I am not alone in wishing that the admins involved could have worked together to find an earlier and more satisfactory solution. --] (]) 15:34, 8 August 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)
			::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Back to the original issue===
			::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Just to get back on track, as there have been no admins looking at the page in question, can we be clear then that nobody thinks Skyring has done anything wrong per the original post? Is what he did the recognised standard on this article?
			::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 ==
	Now for the rest of this post, other comments from today. To quote the involved Surturz above - "He is merely responding to strong POV from (me)". Well, for one, that's no excuse, for two, where is my POV, three, Skyring argues exclusively from POV about what should be in the article based on what he thinks of editors/outside groups/his political view of Howard/opponents of Howard. He has ''barely'' assessed the specific disputed text at all wrt to policy when compared to his POV commentary. He also repeatedly insisted on calling it a BLP violation despite others disagreeing many times, sheer ].
			{{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.
	Orderinchaos is now making repeated assertions that somehow this article is offlimits to anyone but the ], how he doesn't see that as wrong I don't know. He, and Skyring, are making insinuations about other editors. Skyring is insisting here he is enforcing consensus, well he clearly can't count the results of the survey (or as per Orderinchaos, is discounting the non-regulars).
			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>
	Orderinchaos is also even disparaging the taking of the survey, calling it unnecessary because the regulars know the deal, or newcomers can see the situation from the (massive) talk page. As per Skyring, he is either ignoring or miscounting the survey. He has even basically said, the people on the one side know policy, the other side don't. He also stated there has been multiple poll taking in the discussion, therefore it is disruption, (not true - he can point out any other attempt on the page if he likes). None of this behaviour is a content dispute as Order is suggesting, and none of it is justified because Skyring gets angry when he doesn't get his preferred version of articles preserved. ] (]) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I have never argued that it is off limits to anyone but the regulars. I have opposed a ''particular phenomenon'' where a group of previously uninvolved people show up at an article within a day or so of each other without any interest in its development but simply to ]. This is an in-principle violation of ] and really rankles with me for the primary reason that it is not behaviour which is in any way designed to produce an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. The careful avoidance of ], and the hysterical reactions of those involved when asked to provide them (which proves that the addition is based purely on an appeal to emotion and not reason), confirm my belief that this is a campaign rather than anything in good faith. Theoretically, it would be possible to ram-raid a whole stack of articles in succession pushing an extreme left, or extreme right, or a particular philosophical point of view. It's been done before. Thankfully, most of the editors on that occasion about a year and a half ago are banned now... they caused an awful lot of disruption and drove a lot of very good editors off the encyclopaedia during their reign of terror though. When one reads ArbCom proceedings regularly enough one sees that it's not a phenomenon limited to Australian politics articles, and can theoretically occur anywhere where there could be advantage in pushing particular ideological, religious or nationalist barrows - the names change, but the ] is very much the same. As for your "survey", that in itself was a blatant and wilful violation of ] itself in my opinion, as the positions were already very clear, and ] as you well know. ] 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::You haven't said anything new here, just reinforced your ] views. You are labeling me a left wing campaigner because of what has happened on the article previously, which has nothing at all to do with me. This is a clear souring of the discussion, it seems you simply cannot accept that a new editor could come to that discussion and disagree with your group of regulars who think being pally with each other despite having differences absolves you from the most basic behavioural and procedural undertakings. Face it, you are ]. If you have evidence of any hysterical views from me in the discussion, be my guest and substantiate (as requested from the regulars many times when handing out accusations). Similarly, if you wish to explain how the consensus in a talk discussion with going on 30 discrete headers is "clear to anyone", and that the starting of the first and only attempt to survey it is "a blatant and wilful violation of ]". Your poisoning of the discussion and the editors who disagree with you based on your previous experiences is frankly disgusting, and certainly not becoming of an admin. If this is how you act in all Australian politics articles it is no wonder that people feel justified in acting badly, you are hardly setting any kind of example. Why don't you just drop any pretence that you are acting in good faith, and that you have any intention of engaging on that talk page with the editors who clearly disagree with your removal of a sourced piece of information, and have not done anything except say why they disagree. The way you talk about neutral point of view just takes the biscuit, given the numerous political POV assertions made that have ''absolutely nothing to do'' with the disputed text. It is yourself that are turning that page into a politiclal blog rather than a discussion about how to improve the article with a neutral and sourced piece of information, or with arguments as to why it is not to be included. If you are so sure of your interpretation of policy, why have you not sought third opinons, why are you so unwilling to mediate, why are you doing anything and everything to distract the discussion from discussing the actual text and its merits/faults. In fact, why don't you just open a checkuser case for the four of us who are clearly in league as part of a leftist campaign to wage war against your five editors who are the only editors who are right, because well, you own the article, you've been through bad experiences before, you like each other, we are mad, yader yader yader. ] (]) 21:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::One thing I do have to thank you guys for, you know - you've made the administrators' job in the future a lot easier. There were people on the verge of taking each other to ArbCom with multiple failed RfMs and whatever else, who are politically and in just about every sense divided in a way which has been compounded by repeated conflicts over a long period of time, and your activism has actually united them, some of them for the first time ever. At least one contributor's posts suggest he is almost in disbelief that certain other editors agree with him. As for your rhetorical questions - there is nothing to mediate, there is a behavioural issue. Additionally, you and I both know a checkuser would be meaningless - the users involved are on different continents and I have no doubt they are three different people. I much wish it to be otherwise, so we could clear the non-productive users out (as at least one other has suggested) and maybe have some hope of actually ''developing the article'', something none of you are at all interested in, based on contributions. AGF is often misused to stifle proper and appropriate criticism - the general principle however has a caveat, "one does not need to assume good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary". ] 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Another interesting question is as to how I can "own" an article that I've repeatedly argued has chronic flaws and practically needs to be rewritten. Ownership, according to ], would imply I was "possessive about material" which I have repeatedly alleged to be inferior. It is not the fault of any one person that it is so - it's actually the fact that there's no structure or plan in place for managing additions or content, and that those on the article spend more time fighting over single sentences than taking a big picture view. It's an ongoing and long standing issue at all leader articles on Misplaced Pages - I did a ] of major world leader articles a few months ago to see if I could happen upon a formula which could be used to improve Howard, and ] stood out from those as a ''passable'' article, but none of the others I looked at were structurally sound in any sense - even one that had formerly been an FA. ] 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::God help us. Now we're all being described as "pally". I hope that anyone else who knows the true situation sets down their morning coffee before reading the above. Let my keyboard stand as a warning to my pals. --] (]) 22:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, I found it rather amusing too given the history. ] 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::You are wilfully ignoring the consensus process which is taking place in the talk page. Let me make my point clear to you, I am not pushing for an inclusion of anything which is not consensual. I hope you will have this sentence in mind when you seek to form your next sentence. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
			:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
			:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
			:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
			:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] backlog doin' great ==
	:::There are editors who support and and there are some oppose the inclusion of the text. Therefore, there is no consensus. I guess your belief is that the consensus is unachievable. My belief is that it is achievable by taking the process along based on discussion (without name calling) and reach a consensus which may eventually even involve the omission of the contested material (while the supporters are still not so unhappy) or inclusion of a modified text (while the opposers are also not so unhappy). This process can be reached only by good faith and policy oriented discussion and also by making sure that it does not violate any wikipedia policy. Do you not agree with me? In fact, I have a feeling that we are slowly edging towards it unless some people object to such a good faith process. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::No, there is four newcomers who support the content, who cannot justify its inclusion. Consensus opposes its inclusion. I argue it has been achieved and is being ] by yourself and others. There is no process taking place in the talk page as you suggest. If you disagree, show me the evidence - most of the threads there seem to have died as you guys insist on starting new ones every time you find that everybody disagrees with you. ] 21:44, 8 August 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.
	== ] and ] violations? ==
			That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I've removed the following text on the ] talk page twice and been reverted twice. The first two sections seem to be a general discussion about natural gas and how it could be used in public transport fleets and private vehicles. The last sections seems like crystal-balling to me as well as an attempt at original research. However, I'm not sure if I'm applying the policy correctly since someone else keeps reverting me. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I've rm'd it, please repost here if it comes back. ] (]) 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
			== Call for mentors ==
	== Today's Featured Article - ] ==
			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)
	{{resolved}}
			: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)
	], which is Today's Featured Article was semi-protected for one month on July 19. Right now, it is ''''. Should someone change it to ''''? Or was there some discussion somewhere that I didn't see? ]]] 00:08, 8 August 2008 (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)
	:Actually, two months. I've notified the protecting admin of this question. ] 01:19, 8 August 2008 (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)
	::Not too sure why this thread was started seeing as this is pretty run of the mill. If you see a article that was previously protected and then was placed on the mainpage (unless there is something in the logs for ''that day'' stating it has been temporally protected for some reason) you just set the protection level to . Take a look at the , that will help explain a few things. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 8 August 2008 (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 ]==
	== Strange edits by ] ==
			]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
			== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
	I noticed this user asking for his talk page to be protected . It looked somewhat unusual as the talk page link was red at that time so my first move was to revert and warn. Then I looked at his which were for the most part good except for a weired edit this morning which broke a redirect. Both edits state that they use twinkle in the edit summary, so I figured maybe that's the problem but here is the strange thing- This user hasn't created a ] page so how can he be using Twinkle? I don't use it myself, maybe it isn't necessary to have the monobook page? Perhaps I am being overly suspicious. I can't see why anyone would pretend to use twinkle. Neither can I see why someone would ask to have their talk page protected citing vandalism when no one had edited until me. ] | ] 01:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	: I think Twinkle is available as a gadget in ], eliminating the need for a monobook.js page. ]&nbsp;<sup>(]-])</sup> 01:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::So it is. Well that explains that bit then. ] | ] 01:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
	== District of Columbia Act Link is corrupt? ==
			(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)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act - The first link listed here appears to make you download some sort of corrupted text file. Seeing as this file is of great interest to conspiricy theorists I think it is in everyone's interest to ensure the original readable version of this link is put back into place. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I don't see a problem. Try to ] and if the problem is still there then give a more precise description of what you see. And do you mean it is at http://en.wikipedia.org/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act or a page linked from there? ] (]) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*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 ==
	== Single purpose slander account ==
			There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{resolved|Username hard blocked. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 07:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)}}
	Hi Admins,
			== Deleted contributions request ==
	Quick one, drawing your attention to an account by the name of Teamslanderyou. This user's are both to a single page, the BLP of Andrew Landeryou. One was a questionable addition of a blog that does little more than post schoolyard abuse of Andrew Landeryou (often variations of calling him fat), the second was to change the link to Landeryou's blog to the .
			{{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)
	There can be little or no doubt the account exists only as a single purpose account made to (excuse the pun) slander Andrew Landeryou on wiki. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm familiar with this one - "Slanderyou" is a derogatory nickname for the guy amongst his opponents in blogosphere, so I'd guess it's related. He certainly has no shortage of enemies. ] 07:17, 8 August 2008 (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)
	::I've hard blocked the username as their intention is clearly not to contribute productively to the project. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 07:50, 8 August 2008 (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 ] ==
	== Confirmed sockpuppet ==
			{{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)
	As per ]'s (the checkuser) suggestion, I'm asking an uninvolved administrator to review the results of ] and take an admin action (if needed). Considering the user's disruptive sockpuppeting, which started in January and is still ongoing (, threats to the checkuser etc), I think an indef block for the sockpuppet account may be appropriate. Cheers. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	: Also see comments ] and ], as well as ] for further background - ] <sup>]</sup> 10:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Looking into it now. ] ] 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Okay, as best I can tell, {{user|Musiclover565}} (the "sockmaster" account) has not edited since February 2008. I'm not seeing any evidence of ''abusive'' socking here - either there hasn't been any, or the evidence has not been provided. A couple of IP edits which could (]) have been made whilst inadvertently logged out, but no proven multiple <u>accounts</U>. Where is this threat to the checkuser? Is there a ]?
	:::Edit-warring, yes, but nothing that breaches 3RR, and I can't justifiably block {{user|Whitenoise123}} (the "sock") for edits which I agree with myself. The Sharapova article really did go into a disproportionate amount of detail on her 2008 season than all previous seasons. If I have missed something, feel free to let me know. ] ] 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
	== ] ==
			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)
	Is it possible that someone could update te ] page. It hasn't been updated since May 23 and there have been a lot of requests for it to be updated. I would do it myself but I am not an admin so I doubt I have the access to do it.--] (]) 10:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:There doesn't seem to be any admin flag requirement to do this. ] (]) 11:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:See ].
	::OK, after reviewing these instructions this process requires someone with tools (like access to the tools server) that I do not have.--] (]) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Eh, no. It seems to require Java and a database dump. I'll see if I can set up a run early next week, but I need to go update all my Java stuffs. <font color="green">]</font><font color="dark purple">]</font> 16:21, 8 August 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>
	== no consensus at AfD? ==
			:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
			:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
	If I'm in the wrong place to ask this than please forgive me and transfer the discussion to the appropriate place. I'm looking for administrator input on what exactly constitutes "no consensus" in AfD. I've recently been involved in two AfDs which were closed as "no consensus" and cannot help but, be confused. For openness I was on the delete side in both (and the nom in one of them). In neither case did the keep side discuss the policies and guidelines of the project (as far as I could tell). I'm under the impression that "no consensus" is meant to be used where both sides discuss the merits and/or lack there of from a policy and guideline standpoint but, consensus is not reached through that process. Is this wrong in someway? I can't seem to find the information at the deletion guides (though I may have simply overlooked it). I can reveal the actual discussions if you guys/girls feel they are needed but, don't want to use this noticeboard as a way "around" deletion review or other process. Thanks. ] (]) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:You'd have to specify which deletions to get really useful feedback. The closing admins should weigh the arguments on both sides; presumably they have. You might ask them what keep arguments they felt had weight; if that doesn't satisfy you, DRV is always an option. ] <small>]</small> 13:40, 8 August 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)
	:: I'm in the process of asking the specific admins but, am really wondering where the policy/guideline on "no consensus" is and/or what it says. My understanding of DRV is that is for process review and such and I don't feel I can go there unless I know what the process is meant to be in the first place. I also think the admin's in both cases had the best of intentions and don't want to make it about them (if that makes any sense). ] (]) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::The status of arguments is at ]; the nature of consensus at ]. ] is an essay, but widely respected. I must assume that the admins found more force in the keep arguments than you do. ] <small>]</small> 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::: So there isn't a policy/guideline specific to admins which helps in these cases? Only the general ones you link to above? Is DRV just for policy/process errors? ] (]) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::What AFDs are you referring to, for context? ] ] 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::*I don't know any more specific pages; admins don't have a namespace of their own.
	::::*DRV is for policy/process errors, but misreading the balance of argument is a process error. (Uninvolved editors are less likely to feel that any individual case is a misreading, so such requests are often denied; it is also civil to tell the admins you have appealled to DRV.) ] <small>]</small> 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	''(outdent)'' ] is one. I figured giving it a rest for a couple of months with a clear-cut directive to improve refs was the most time-effective way to go rather than continuing. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:37, 8 August 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)
	*] is the other one. I'm still awaiting a response from the admin on this one. As stated above I didn't want to make my basic question about the specific articles or admins but, since people more experienced than I think it is important. Like I siad I don't want to make this into a replacement for DRV or other places so please don't let others do that with this question. Thanks. ] (]) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	**It depends on what the '''Keep''' arguments actually were; as it happens, I would have !voted to keep one and delete the other.
			::::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. ==
	*:On Casliber's close, the keep votes claimed notability, which is certainly an appeal to policy; he could have chosen to look behind them to see if there was more here than a resume, but we can also get back to the issue in a couple of months.
			{{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)
	*:On King of Heart's close, one issue is whether we need an article on every Misplaced Pages. The fact that we don't have one, and have actually deleted some, was not brought out till half-way through; if it had been, a consensus might have emerged. ] <small>]</small> 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	: This is going to sound bad probably but, that is exactly what I didn't want this section to turn into. It's why I was asking about general policy and guidelines. I don't want this to turn into an actual DRV discussion of the particular articles. ] (]) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Then let me summmarize. The admins clearly chose not to discount the keep arguments entirely. This was a judgment call, defensible in both cases; other admins might have chosen differently, and that would have been defensible too. Once that's done, our vague definition of consensus comes in. We can have consensus despite one or two objections (it depends on how many the supports are, and how reasonable); but not this many. ] <small>]</small> 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			{{hab}}
			== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
	== ] ==
			{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
	I have encountered an editor who (having failed to gain consensus, or indeed support, at a ], is now declaring that . Could someone else have a word with him? I've had several tries at it, and do not think further discussion from me will serve any useful purpose. On the other hand, dispute resolution seems excessive for now. ] <small>]</small> 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			*
	:I have reverted his latest message on that discussion page as it was rife with insults and I've left him a warning. ]] 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			*
	::Thank you. However, could somebody also explain to him that ] and ] are ''both'' policy and work together? Mrg's refusal to admit this that appears to be the reason for the incivility. Like many of us, he gets uncivil when frustrated. ] <small>]</small> 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	Oh no, Mrg ''again''? Wasn't he at ] or some such just the other day for similar behaviour and narrowly escaped a topic ban or something? ] ] 14:36, 8 August 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 ==
	:He's also under an ]. ] 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::Yep, that's actually what I meant, thanks for digging it out. Original discussion was ]. He can be banned from individual pages if he is disruptive, and that applies particularly to making exaggerated amounts of fuss over lame naming and article moving discussions. ] ] 14:43, 8 August 2008 (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)
	If he fails to respond positively to the warning then we may have to step in and ban him from that article too. *Sighs* - Hopefully he will though. ]] 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Well, to be fair, he hasn't been editing the article; he's just been discussing the move interminably (to my mind unreasonably). The editing restriction could stand being rephrased to include talk space; it's clear from the discussion that that was intended, but it's not stated. ] <small>]</small> 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== StoneX Group Inc. ==
	== MOS and company names in all-capital letters ==
			I’m concerned about the page at ]
	{{Resolved|1=Situation being actively monitored. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)}}
	This is a followup subject to the above ] naming dispute as the subject is now in the ] under the subject line Companies which officially use all-capital letters in their name. One of my more fanatical adversaries in the naming dispute is ]. The following statements are pasted from the above MOS talk page:<br><br>
	Another example is ], an oil company whose name was derived from Atlantic Richfield Company. Please do not start an edit war in the ARCO article. ] (]) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	: I've mentioned ] to you before. These kinds of snide remarks do not help anyone. ] (]) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Everyone reading this section will note that my above statement about ] was a polite plea not to make major changes to the ARCO article which could start an edit war with the ARCO article editors. Croctotheface considered that statement uncivil. I should pass this note along to the administrators. ] (]) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)<br><br>
	So I'm doing that. ] (]) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:What action do you want us to take? This is a content dispute. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes, but the ABN AMRO content dispute developed into an edit war which developed into a renaming war which led an administrator who's familar with ABN AMRO to protect that article. ] (]) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, I am with ''Xenocidic'' here ... and am not very sure what you are looking for. --] (]) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Just monitor the above MOS capital letters talk page and add your input. ] (]) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== CSD Refusal ==
			:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Permissions Removal ==
	'''NawlinWiki''' rejected my proposal for the speedy deletion of ]. Sadly his/her talk page is semi-protected, and so I am unable to talk to him about it.
			{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	This page appears to be a direct translation from the French version of the article (CSD A2). However, it was rejected without entering into any discussion on the talk page. The CSD article clearly states that articles that are translations from foreign language WIKIs are to be deleted. The edit history shows that all this content appeared in one edit, showing evidence of a translation. So I am disappointed that NawlinWiki rejected the proposal so out of hand. Explanation please. --] (]) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:You have misunderstood the criteria. ] is for articles written in a language other than English but created on en.wikipedia. The article in question may, however, require attribution to fr.wiki. ] (]) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (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)
	:(edit conflict) First, the topic is ''highly'' notable and second, the article would only be a CSD if it was still in a foreign language and had been copied to en.Misplaced Pages as such. ] (]) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ftools is back! ==
	:*Sockpuppet of {{userlinks|RiverRubicon}}. ] 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] again ==
	I'd like input on ] with indef blocked ]. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)		:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Block appeal for ] ==
	:I always find it odd when people insist they have to be unblocked ''NOW''. He says he's willing to follow the rules and regulations. Part of our regulations are that consensus is king. The consensus in the previous discussion decided that no action would be taken until August 20 at the earliest. If he wants to show he's willing to abide by our policies, he should be willing to wait until then. Consensus can change, yes, but continually pestering people isn't going to get the change he's looking for. As you told him yourself back in July, he's not helping himself with this. If he wants to be unblocked, he needs to show some self-control that hasn't been witnessed yet. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Agree with Hersfold here, impatience shows immaturity, and immaturity usually causes problems. He was already advised that only time will decide his fate and yet here he is not much longer. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:33, 8 August 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:
	::Not yet, and now I have doubts about August 20th. It's a Zen<sup></sup> thing; he should remain blocked until he is no longer desperate to be unblocked; once it is no longer vital to him, then it's safe to unblock. --] (]) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC) <small> Probably should note that I don't actually know anything about ], so it's quite possible it isn't a Zen thing at all; it might be irony or something, although ]. </small>
			: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.
	== ] ==
			: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.
	Could an admin please let me know who edited the ] before it was deleted for the reason CSD G10. Thanks. ] (]) 20:17, 8 August 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.
	:Why do you need to know? That page was deleted back in 2006. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:: If the same user was responsible for the mess both times, someone should say soemthing to them. ] (]) 21:37, 8 August 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)
	:::The person who created the original ] article, the one deleted as a G10, has not edited the new one. The old article was extremely short, only five lines, and it really *was* an attack page. The current one is much more balanced. If you are still concerned about the current article's neutrality, you could raise the matter on the article's Talk page. You could also open a complaint at ] if you think the article violates our rules on Biographies of Living Persons. ] (]) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
			] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	== John Edwards, AFD, and you ==
			*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Loathe though I am to short-circuit normal processes, I note that ] appears to have confirmed the allegations currently discussed at ], currently under AFD at its former title of ]. Given that confirmation, given in an ABC interview (certainly a Reliable Source), and given that the deletion rationale was based largely on the dearth of confrimation and reliable sourcing, I'm wondering if a procedural close would be appropriate. I note that this article will be getting a lot of traffic shortly, if it is not already, and will be seeing a lot of edits adding confirmed and reliable information - and, of course, some of the usual "cocksdickslol". Thoughts? I add, as a caveat, that I recommended strong keep once the news broke, and did not comment before - though I added the AFD to the society category. Thanks, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 21:05, 8 August 2008 (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)
	:Seems like closing is the sensible thing to do, with the proviso that it could be relisted without prejudice if there is a valid reason to do so. I have no time at the moment myself, though. Sorry. ] 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Closed. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. I absolutely agree that it should be re-nominated if it ends up being the BLP nigthmare it could be. But it's impossible to have reasonable debate if the facts of the matter are changing so rapidly. One could argue, though, that it's impossible to have a reasonable debate where politics are involved, but there you go. Thanks for the quick responses, all. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 01:56, 10 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	22	33	55
TfD	0	0	0	15	15
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	7	10	17
RfD	0	0	36	42	78
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 24 sockpuppet investigations
• 18 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 52 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 14 requested closures
• 44 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 12 Copyright problems

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

  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)

• Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
  • No. Spicy (talk) 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. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF? Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

43.249.196.179 (again)

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

User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.

I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.

But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA _T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA _T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA _T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.

WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.

The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA _T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Warn both to drop the stick, otherwise, no action at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hands FOARP two trouts You want to hand them out, or me? Buffs (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

---

• Naomi Seibt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

---

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

For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more WP:AGF. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse lifting TBAN per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse removal of topic ban. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse removal of topic ban per Misplaced Pages:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

---

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

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

First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in WP:Vandalism. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our policies and guidelines before resuming editing. Donald Albury 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.

• I was reviewing articles on WP:AFC back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon Draft: Moe Dimanche, which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with WP:ARTIST, which was the main claim of notability).
• Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
• I then commented on User talk:NovembersHeartbeat because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark Draft:Moe Dimanche on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
• On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that Draft:Moe Dimanche had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have WP:COI concerns and I don't think he passes WP:GNG) and also nominate Dimanche v. Brown, which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
• In addition, I would like to question whether there is WP:COI going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in WP:SOCK... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? Spiralwidget (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? 74.254.224.67 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The exact text from the source is

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

The source says exactly what you just quoted. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. 74.254.224.67 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean without any explanation as his edit summary clearly documents his reason as Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: Talk:Fender Stratocaster or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at User talk:FlightTime and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. TiggerJay (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Emoji redirect

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

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

---

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

 Done. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal

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

I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.

  I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.

  I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:

  This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

---

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

How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Andra Febrian report

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

First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this  Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger - Quack quack? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

---

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

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

Cannot draftify page

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

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

---

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

 Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove PCR flag

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

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

---

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

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

"The Testifier" report

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

Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

---

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

I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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

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

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

---

repost from archive:

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

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

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

• 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
• 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
• 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
• 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
• 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
• 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
• 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
• 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
• 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
  • (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
• 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".

• 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa

• 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
• 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
• 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
• 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
• 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.

---

• 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
• 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.

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

Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.

I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.

Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

• I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?

  • Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
  • Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
  • Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
  • Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
  • Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
  • Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?

  Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

  — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

  .
• Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:

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

• Uwappa (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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.

• This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

An inappropriate template being added to many pages

• Oct13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Template:Mortal_sin_in_the_Catholic_Church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The template as been deleted per WP:G4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. Tarlby 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a RADAR situation here. Beeblebrox 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

---

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

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

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

This might be better at WP:AN. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Their previous block seemed a little bit like WP:CIR block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. -Lemonaka 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

• (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation

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

Deleted contributions request

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

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

---

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

• Mu Online (lv) jaunākās ziņas, tendences un pamācības
• Mu Online ziņas un pamācības

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! JJP_Master (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

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

I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.

While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.

My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.

Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards