Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:07, 5 September 2008 view sourceRlendog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators173,786 edits →Unprotection Wheel Warring on Sarah Palin and RFAR: support protection.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:23, 10 January 2025 view source Asilvering (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators37,732 edits →Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel: new sectionTag: New topic 
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 = 400K
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|counter = 166
|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>


== User signature == ==Open tasks==
<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 ==
{{resolved|Blocked, unblocked, signature shortened, inappropriate pages deleted. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 10:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}}
I did not see a RFC appropriate to discuss a users signature. So here it is. I am looking for a little guidance on ]. You can see his signature on my talk page. I do not see a strict guideline in the ] page other then over 255 char is truncated by the system. If this is the wrong place for this please point me in the right direction. Thanks all. <b>]<sup>] or ]</sup></b> 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
::It looks a little excessive to me but I'm biased against fancy and extra long signatures. You can list it on ] or ]. ] (]) 18:54, 27 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.
:::That's way too long, to the point that it's disruptive. ] isn't the right place, as it's not the username that's excessive, just the signature. Have you tried simply asking him to tone it down? &ndash;] ] ] 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I did notify them. You can see their response on my talk page. He deletes everything from his talk page. Essentially he said I was the only person to complain about it. I think his account is 8 days old. <b>]<sup>] or ]</sup></b> 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't think this is a new editor. On the other hand, he looks like a good faith contributor so far, and he says he isn't deleting things from his Talk page but archiving them to sub-pages. I've sent a polite note with my opinion of the sig. Let's see what happens. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, I agree it's excessive; but probably just asking nicely from more than one person would do the trick. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:39, 28 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'm no expert on foreign languages, but it appears that his "signature" is his full name, if that's the case, the sig looks to be okay. His userpage, however, is a different story. Big time WP:NOT goin' on there! <span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 12:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
:::...and . I'm trying to to him about the sig issue, so someone else should drop a follow-up to KoshVorlon's friendly about userpage content. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::::No luck. In fact, his response seems simply ]y to me. Thoughts from other admins on next steps, if any? — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Account created 8/19 yet seems to be navigating very well. Placed protection templates on his own user page . Does not even act interested in what others are trying to tell him. Shuts them down quickly. <b>]<sup>] or ]</sup></b> 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else it seems to violate , which states that "long signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution." Unfortunately, there's little in the policy that ''actually prevents'' this. Also, that the software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters suggests that this is the maximum allowable number of characters, and indeed, the user seems . You could ''try'' asking for comments on the WP:SIG talk page, but it seems that RFC might be the only other recourse. Just as a side note, the user's behaviour seems . He's a tough call; mostly edits his own pages, although has made some apparently constructive edits elsewhere. Interestingly, also appears interested in . ] (]) 16:26, 28 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 ].}}
His is not encouraging... not least because it's shorter than his sig. RfC? <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
:Might need some additional eyeballs on his page. I have reverted his family tree a total of three times and will not revert further, his response was to revert back and respond with rather as well. I have also reverted his protection template as it's deceptive. If you think I'm barking up the wrong tree - let me know and I'll stop.
<span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::I've removed the family tree and posted a message to his talk page explaining why. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::: And he deleted it saying you are a vandal. <b>]<sup>] or ]</sup></b> 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::I noticed. I've been called worse... <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well that did not work ]. <b>]<sup>] or ]</sup></b> 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
:::Some of his other subpages are... interesting as well. ] (]) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
Can I assure you all I am not going to shorten it. If anyone can, do they mind actually semi-protecting and move-protecting my userpage. '''''] (]) (])''''' 19:16, 28 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.
::Your incivility surrounding the clearly problematic issue of your excessively long signature aside, it has that such protection applies only if the page is being vandalised, which it isn't. ] (]) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
===Proposed block===
I'll be the first to say it: a short block is in order. This "new" user is continuing to make uncivil and disruptive edits. Numerous editors and admins have left them extremely polite messages asking them to please comply with our community guidelines. In return, there has been defiant and antagonistic conduct, including name calling, edit warring, creating inappropriate pages, and selectively deleting ongoing conversations. I will not block without support from others here, but I don't think a separate RfC is required to effectively deal with this. We should have very little tolerance for this kind of behavior. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 19:31, 28 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?
*'''Support'''- His actions and responses show he is not willing to work within the community guidelines or even engage in dialog. His comments at ] shows his willingness to defy consensus. <b>]<sup>] or ]</sup></b> 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''SUPPORT''' - I'm involved, of course, however, I support blocking. He is showing incivlity, edit warring, and if I'm not mistaken, he's now socking . It's sole edit is to his page! I think a nice cup of tea is in order for him.
<span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 19:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sig is not negotiable and this user must understand that. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' with a reasonable approach progress has been made over the family tree issue. He's refrained from describing good faith edits as "vandalism" for at least ten contributions. Blocking won't serve any particular purpose, as it would seem to be primarily punitive in nature. Let me continue talking to him to try and work things out. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
:Without supporting or opposing, I disagree that a block would be punitive. If an editor refuses to change a signature that multiple editors have described as disruptive, then a block is very much preventative. As soon as the disruptive signature is changed, the editor would be unblocked. Quite some time ago (likely over a year ago), I blocked an editor who refused to remove images from his signature, despite multiple editors asking him to do so. The second he removed the images, another admin unblocked. - ] ] 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. and continue, as does inappropriate use of . User is a curious combination of brand new and very familiar with the workings of Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, I would also support postponing the block to give Gb a chance to work with him. If the user demonstrates that he can remain civil; edit something other than his own user pages; and abide by our policies and consensus, a block may not be needed. If he continues as he's currently behaving though, he clearly needs a block. ] (]) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. If Gb succeeds in convincing them to change their signature, request deletion of the inappropriate user pages, and commit to adopting a collaborative and civil attitude toward contributing here, that would help alleviate ''some'' of the serious concerns I have with this user. But if the behavior continues, a block would clearly be preventative in nature. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:41, 28 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 ]?


] (]) 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. ]]<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)
===Blocked===
: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've actually went ahead and blocked. Looking into the contributions of that user showed little but willful disruption and agressivity, and dismissive comments to attempts to guide them. With luck, Gb could be able to coax better behavior and unblock, but in the meantime I see no reason to let this continue. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:00, 28 August 2008 (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)
:You'll get no argument from me, obviously. I was willing to wait, but was not hopeful much would come of doing so. I will also note that discussions on the user's talk page are not affected by the block, and unblocking can occur if significant progress is shown. Indefinite is ''not'' permanent. Thanks to Coren for acting decisively. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' block. I've also AFD'ed one of his contributions that was earlier PROD'ed: ]. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 01:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, nice to see that the above completely ignores the facts that (i) they hadn't edited for an hour and a half, (ii) their recent edits had shown a movement towards "behaving properly", and (iii) not forty minutes before the block was imposed I'd left them a polite message about their userpages for which an answer was still awaited.
::I was slowly coaxing better behaviour. The block and the (totally unnecessary) 3RR report have, I suspect, made that now nigh-on impossible. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 07:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::(sigh) Scratch that, then. Pass me my hat, a plate, and a knife and fork. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Nice job. Looks like my diet includes a little headwear as well. Sincere thanks for your efforts, and let's hope they are reformed for good! — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 12:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeay Gb. Epic win! &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Celebrations may have been premature. Recent are less than promising, to say the least. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
Some problematic edits continue. In particular, please see the following edits from today: . I've left a warning on his talk page, but propose he be re-blocked following his next disruptive edit. ] (]) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:Frankly does not bode well. His "sense of humor" seems to be constructed in such a way as to ]; I'm ''definitely'' blocking indef if he disrupts again. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 31 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)
::He's ''just'' this side of being blocked right now. edit is fairly rude, but the user he directed it to has given him a warning. At this point, any further incivility and I think I'm going to block him. ] (]) 00:59, 1 September 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)
::: 1 week by {{user|LessHeard vanU}}. - ] ] 23:59, 2 September 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)
== Imposter of Sceptre ==
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
Just come across to {{user|Kmweber}}'s userpage. Looking at ], the strikes me out immediately as {{user|Sceptre}} (due to his past with Kmweber) under a new account. Although it's blocked indefinitely, this may need further looking into. recently shows that the Sceptre IP is the only person that has vandalised it. also makes me think that it is Sceptre under the {{user|Petulant little shit}} name. Although Sceptre has "declared" he is retired, it may be worth checking this out, even though the "Petulant little shit" account is blocked indef. Thoughts? ] (]) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Most likely an imposter. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::Given that both Petulant little shit's and Sceptre's IPs have triggered autoblocks in the same 10 minute period, they probably are not on the same IP, and not the same person. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::OK. Just double-checking in case Sceptre had created a new account. ] (]) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I was asked in IRC to check... It is {{unlikely}} these are related. ++]: ]/] 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*Yeah, not unless he grew wings and flew 3000 miles since his last edit. ] 21:46, 30 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)
:Its not like Sceptre is the only person who dislikes Kmweber... <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:One of the internet connections I use living in California routine resolves to New Jersey when using geolocating packages. So anything is possible. That said, I have no reason to believe Sceptre is active in this case. ] (]) 01:26, 31 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)
::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::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)
::Good chance that 78.105.113.152, vandalizing Weber before Petulant_little_shit, is banned ], even though that isn't his primary IP range (87.112-87.115); he uses neighborhood wireless routers, and other means of alternate access, and this could be in his neighborhood. He's currently vandalizing from the 87.112-87.115 range; vandalizing Kmweber has been common for him, and, as I recall, Fredrick day has had an interest in ], hence the IP's edit to ]. --] (]) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Unlikely indeed, but it is certainly true that the trolling from ] is the same as Petulant little shit, and has been blocked for a month. There are various other bits of trolling from the same user on that /24. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
:::I have to defer to a checkuser. My comment referred, not to Petulant, but to the IP 78.105.113.152, which was acting in a similar manner to Petulant and the 207.112 IP. Hence I'd have some suspicion, still, that Fredrick day was using some kind of proxy (since Fredrick day is in London and 207.112.43.3 is in Canada); however, of course, Fredrick day is not the only highly knowledgeable and entrenched vandal, plus he has attracted some significant sympathy. We should be so lucky! --] (]) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::Sorry, the "unlikely indeed" was a reference to Lar's comment. You will see a positive identification of those edits with Sceptre, which I absolutely confirm to be the case per lengthy CU inquiry prior to Sceptre's admission. This isn't Fredrick day, with whom I am, as you are aware, familiar. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
:::::Thanks, Sam. --] (]) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
: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)
:: I'm not in london, no idea why you think that. --] (]) 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::Ah, Plus.net is in Sheffield. But I don't know what territory they cover. Why London? Possibly some other IPs used, maybe, or just bad memory. In any case, Fredrick day has indeed been active in the last week, as ]. ]. --] (]) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
:::Uhm, IP 87.112.*.* appears to be from the same range as many Fredrick day socks. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::Right. And he's not in London, as he said. Speak of the devil. Procutus was revealed as Frecrick day because of his support for the IP above in an edit war. It's obvious that 87.112-87.115 is very convenient for him. He's frequently used other IP, and quite likely has multiple ISP access going at once. It's going to be tricky to find the true puppet master; for Fredrick day clearly isn't the original account, and he's claimed so a number of times; Fredric day was a bad hand account for.... for whom I either don't know or can't say yet, not enough proof. What I find fascinating is that Fredrick day gives voice to what some editors and administrators think, but don't usually say, because it would be uncivil. But his days are numbered. Or at least named. --] (]) 03:37, 2 September 2008 (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)
:::::If you check edit histories carefully, you may find additional slip ups where the user forgets which account they are using, or is logged out, and connects two or more of their identities. Given the volume of editing, the evidence is probably there for the finding. If there is another master account, still active, it would be good to find it. But please, do not make any accusations until there is solid evidence, preferably reviewed by an uninvolved party to help avoid ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:43, 2 September 2008 (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 ==
I know this is really isn't the thread to start such a discussion, but it seems I was out of town when the fun was happening.. Anyone else feel that Spectre's current block is a major over reaction? For someone who's never been blocked before (besides test blocks, which don't count), this is absurd. From what I've read, the only reason he was "indef" blocked was to get him to apologies, which he did, and then it could go to the community to decide if he should be blocked. Seems that didn't happen, and he retired instead. Regardless if someone has "retired" or not, I think that block discussion should still happen. -- ] 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:He couldn't believe he was held to certain levels of decorum, which is why he overreacted from having any kind of block, and then claimed retirement in response.--] <sup>]</sup> 04:04, 2 September 2008 (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:
::Bedford, go troll somewhere else. A two month block for an editor who has never been blocked before is in very bad taste. I've probably done worse, and I've never been blocked that long. -- ] 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::See --> ]. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I've already seen that, and it's not a blocking discussion. Two months is extreme over-kill, and is nothing more than a form of punishment, rather than a realistic attempt to protect the Wiki from harm. -- ] 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, the block length is academic now as he has retired. I suspect had the discussion on mentorship proceeded then a comback would have been negotiated fairly readily. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I disagree. I think he retired out of frustration over the block itself, so had he not been blocked he likely would not have "retired". I think we owe it to him to say "if you want to come back, you can do so in less than two months". I would even go so far as to say that no block is needed at this point, at least according to our blocking policy. Having a block discussion even after a user has "retired" is important. -- ] 05:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


=== Evidence ===
(<--) A reminder in relation to comments further up this thread: Geolocation in the UK is virtually meaningless. ISPs generally serve the whole country. It is however extremely uncommon (but not impossible) for the same person to have two different broadband ISPs at home. </stating the obvious> ] (]) 04:34, 3 September 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.
hahahahahahahaha so far you've spent 2 pages talking about a 2-edit account and congratulating each other for the great job you're doing. Sam Korn likes to publish the IPs of random accounts with no contributions, and hand out punishment like candy. Are the checkuser rules supposed to be a bad joke? Do you have any standards at all? {{unsigned|207.112.39.99}}
– 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.
I'd like to suggest, not for the first time, that you stop treating all new users like shit, as a strategy for reducing vandalism. {{unsigned|207.112.39.99}}
– 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.
:We don't treat new users like "shit", however if new users vandalise, that's a completely different kettle of fish. ] (]) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


4.
== warning template for Hurricane Gustav ==
- 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.
During Hurricane Katrina, Misplaced Pages had this warning template on the top of the page
- 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.
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your area. '''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Misplaced Pages information.'''
</div>


6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
I placed one on the page for ] but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--] (]) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::(ec) I agree. But that's ''the whole point of the template.'' So what's the objection?] (]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


=== Context ===
Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--] (]) 03:25, 1 September 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==
:Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ] (]) 03:26, 1 September 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.
:And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer ] (]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::I think it should be up there. ] (]) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(copied from ], who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)
:::On principle? How about the one that your opinion isn't the only one that matters Lar? I especially like your comment on my talk page. - ] ] 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>


: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 won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) ] (]) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)<small>this has been mentioned on ] too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....</small>
::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::: :o) I think it should ''not'' be up there. :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... ]! :) ] (]) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
:Um, no. I see it now:
:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those contemplating ] are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your procedure. '''Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Misplaced Pages Information".
</div>
:Yeah, let's not. - ] ] 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. ] (]) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. ] (]) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - ] ] 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--] (]) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Or worse:
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a conversion to ] are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Misplaced Pages Information".
</div>
::: -- <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 03:47, 1 September 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)
(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}? <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span> 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are ''very aware'' of the storms in this date and age. - ] 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span> 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
And another...
{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.


However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': "Those considering a ] are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Misplaced Pages may not be current. '''Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Misplaced Pages Information".
</div>
] (]) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a shows it's Misplaced Pages page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - ] ] 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. ''We'' are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. ] (]) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about ]? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - ] 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being ] and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::<small>]. - ] ] 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
::::::<small> Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. </small> ] (]) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) ] (]) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;)<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- ] 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Because we have ] that should generally be used. ] (]) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- ] 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... ''disclaimers''. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't ]. ] (]) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{tl|current}} templates. - ] ] 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oops. ] (]) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors of articles such as ] are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Misplaced Pages: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. '''Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Misplaced Pages policies.'''
</div>
] --] 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.'''
</div>
Word. --]] 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
: LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{tl|HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until . ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 04:44, 1 September 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)
Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for ]:
: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)
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': Those considering using Misplaced Pages are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. '''Do not decide whether or not to use Misplaced Pages based on Misplaced Pages information.'''
::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)
</div>
{{abot}}
It just had to be said. ] 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps it would be easier for Misplaced Pages to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.] (]) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
===prelude to edit war===
You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Misplaced Pages does not exist in a vacuum. ++]: ]/] 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
: What he said. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. ] (]) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::]: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Misplaced Pages? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - ] ] 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++]: ]/] 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::echo Lar. ] (]) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


== Emoji redirect ==
:::::I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for '''incredible''' stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Misplaced Pages could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Misplaced Pages does exist in the real world. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::: I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:22, 1 September 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)
::::::echo Lar. ]. Do what you feel is right. --] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. ]] 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Misplaced Pages so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--] (]) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Topic ban appeal ==
:Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). ] (]) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. ] (]) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++]: ]/] 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. ] (]) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) ] (]) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::. ] (]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - ] 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++]: ]/] 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. ] (]) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++]: ]/] 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. ] (]) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++]: ]/] 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --] (]) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill ] and break ]. Misplaced Pages has been ''lauded'' previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Misplaced Pages. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- ] (]) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps {{tl|current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Misplaced Pages for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.&mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - ] ] 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a ], the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of ''tomfoolery''. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also ''funny''. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)


: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)
Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more '''bold''' pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Misplaced Pages prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over <small>(sorry!)</small>, we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer ''at the top'' for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Misplaced Pages for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++]: ]/] 17:05, 1 September 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)
===Actual disaster warning box===
::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)
<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:57, 1 September 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)
:{{tl|Current disaster}}&mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
<center>{{Current disaster}}
"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:
<BR></center>
- caused many edit wars <br/>
::Isn't that better? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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 ===
:::Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''Editors considering ] are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Misplaced Pages may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. '''Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Misplaced Pages information.''' ''
{{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
</div>
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)
Had to be said... <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is geared up for football season</font></b> 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Now you tell me... ] (]) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::Um... you may wish to link ], unless you enjoy resolving ]/] issues (I know I do!) ] (]) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


== Cannot draftify page ==
What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043 {{Current disaster|name={{{1}}}|event={{{2|tropical cyclone}}}|notes={{red|'''Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Misplaced Pages information.'''}}|red=yes}}
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
--] (]) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


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


== "The Testifier" report ==
Just to note that I am revisiting ] now the dust has settled a bit - there is an issue of ] to sort out and also some ] issues with the sockfarm on the other side of the debate.
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
]'s listed in that report as promoting Schneider and spamming his site:
{{atop
* {{userlinks|Cop 666}}
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Theovetes}}
}}
* {{userlinks|Lazarus86}}
* {{userlinks|Mathemaxi}}
* {{userlinks|Ingupper}}
* {{userlinks|Athenosia}}
* {{userlinks|Filialprojector}}
* {{userlinks|Fordhawk}}
* {{userlinks|Vandenflexor}}
* {{userlinks|Wallaby Jones}}
* {{userlinks|Stratuspower88}}
* {{userlinks|Mondocanetoomer}}
* {{userlinks|Rebeccamack}}
* {{userlinks|SouthernLights}}
* {{userlinks|Verbaleaux}}
* {{userlinks|Verdipun}}
* {{userlinks|Sunstruckglass}}
* {{userlinks|Alfonsogloriano}}
* {{userlinks|Ambersoniata}}
* {{userlinks|UmaPa}}
* {{userlinks|Deadsandsflashing}}
* {{userlinks|Anatolikarpantov}}
* {{userlinks|Corinthiani}}
* {{userlinks|Chasfagan}}
* {{userlinks|Lyledag}}
* {{userlinks|Timesawaste}}
* {{userlinks|Slopack}}
* {{userlinks|Tallulahdor}}
* {{userlinks|Nathanor}}
* {{userlinks|Landoloch}}
* {{userlinks|Good Shoestore}}
That's more than enough for a cross-wiki spam search, which turns up more links but I've not yet found if they were added by the same IP range. {{userlinks|Mathemaxi}} is a good example; note the way good and bad are intermingled and sometimes two links are added at once, one of which is to one of Schneider's reviews. Oh, and "correcting" to US spelling in articles about British and Aussie subjects gets up my nose a bit :-) Example of the kind of thing: inserts link to a review, www.theyshootpictures.com/review_seventhseal.htm, which is now 404 but the goo 'ol wayback machine reveals was a review written by (surprise, surprise) Dan Schneider. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
* I've found a couple of articles with a dozen or more cites to a single interview with Schneider, all the content and cites added by one of the sockfarm. Feel free to look over my edit and block logs and review. I'm leaving a standard message to choose one account and request unblock. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Well its good to know that my tracking down wasn't ignored - I feared all the silliness on the discussion page might have just made both sides look as bad as eachother and nothing would be done. I know its unproven, but just have a look at the discussion and then at one of the articles. I think the similarity in style is too close to be looked over. Also, what is up with that Ovenknob guy? He seems to be so over-the-top I wouldn't be surprised if its just another sockpuppet designed to make me and other editors look unreasonable. ] (]) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
And:
* {{userlinks|Crayonedcat}}
* {{userlinks|Veraciter}}
* {{userlinks|Blanton84}}
* {{userlinks|Bekaymecca}}
* {{userlinks|Shelfgoddess}}
* {{userlinks|Nugluts}}
* {{userlinks|Picacipa}}
* {{userlinks|Tedlam1972}}
Plus {{userlinks|NormalGoddess}} is a possible. How best to identify this sockfarm and tie them together, without violating ]? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
Here is another one * {{userlinks|Harikawa}} It looks like the only editors arguing for DS's notability are socks of DS. I have seen other editors community banned for less then what this prolific sockpuppeteer has done to self promote on wikipedia. ] | ] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
* This game of whack-a-mole is getting a bit tiresome, are there any Checkusers who wouldn't mind looking over this one and perhaps helping with other sleepers or a rangeblock? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
== It's that time of year again, more college classes to keep an eye on... ==
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
{{resolved|Transwiki-ed to Wikiversity. Thanks for the help everyone. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
Just noticed a couple users and after a closer look found what appears to be two college classes, see and . Not sure yet what their goal or focus is on. Just an FYI. ] (]) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
:I left notes on what looks to be the main accounts asking what they were doing and offering any help. ] (]) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
::A couple of those accounts have been blocked for username violations--looks innocent though. See ]. ] 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
:::As far as I can tell, the courses are both at the University of Florida and are & . Both are being taught by the same person. Personally, given the nature of the courses, I'd be surprised if they did any damage to speak of, but it is certainly worth watching. - ] (]) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
::::They've created over forty accounts so far that we can trace: one for each student, plus professorial accounts, class accounts, "team" accounts, etc. The clear intent is to ], in lieu of software products such as those offered by ] and its competititors. I'm willing to ], but I really feel the whole thing needs to come to a grinding halt, and all the pages be deleted, the accounts blocked or renamed to something not proclaiming abusive use, etc. --] &#x007C; ] 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
:::::Have we managed to get any comunication going with them to confirm what they are up to?] 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
}}
::::::Nothing much yet. I just left them a note yesterday. This to me appears to closely resemble the ] project. Groups assigned to learn about WP and then create articles. If this is the case they can only be an asset to us. If not, then we can deal with them. But to shut them down when we don't even know what is going on doesn't make sense to me. ] (]) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:] ]
::::::Actually, we have. From the already-deleted ]: ''"This page is part of an ongoing course assignment for the University of Florida's course on Finite Element Analysis. We are required by our professor, Loc Vu-Quoc, to maintain these pages throughout the current Fall semester. If you have any questions, his email address is"'' and the prof's e-mail. As I've said, we're being used as a webhost, and I think it really does need to be stopped. --] &#x007C; ] 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:] ]
:::::::That is still not very clear to me. If they are just using us as a host, then I completely agree we should shut it down. But "we are required to maintain" doesn't really indicate what they are doing. Are they going to create articles? Some of their initial work, learning about redirects, linking, etc., doesn't seem like simple hosting. ] (]) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::We should ask the instructors of these courses to look at ]. ] (]) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::(ec) They seem to be using it as a host to me - as stated above, they're creating "team use" accounts (strictly prohibited by ]), various pages of links to class syllabus and other course resources, etc. I have no issues with the use of Misplaced Pages as a classroom tool, but they should not be using Misplaced Pages user space as a classroom communication/collaboration device. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


</div>
:::::::::I think we're in the process of making a mistake here. According to the talk page of ] "some goals related to wikipedia are (1) introduction to the use of wikipedia for learning and research, (2) to train future contributors to wikipedia, and (3) to create and develop open course contents for wiki sites such as wikiversity." That does ''not'' sound like they're using Misplaced Pages as a webhost. As long as they're willing to restrict themselves to one account per user, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing we should both allow and encourage. --] (]) 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
::::::::::I'm inclined to agree, in lieu of more info. If the intent is to teach people to use wikipedia properly then it should be a net benefit, so long as they don't do the mess where the students all have to write their own articles which they try to keep separate from the rest of wikipedia. - ] (]) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
]
:::::::::::indeed there is the potential for this to go wrong which is why we really need a line of communication but for the time being this remains only a potential problem.] 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:I am working on trying to figure out the situation and have started communicating with somebody. See and my reply . ] (]) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
::Note that as users do their work, they may be able to contribute and improve wikipedia's existing articles, or that they would find certain topics that are not covered by wikipedia to create new wikipedia articles in the future. ] (]) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
:::The lecture notes and the HW are starting points for open course notes such as those in wikiversity. This point had been clearly explained in both courses. See also the points in the above paragraph regarding potential immediate short-term contributions to wikipedia by these users, in addition to the long-term goals mentioned in . ] (]) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
::::Even this discussion among wikipedia administrators would be already a good learning experience about the administrative structure and the working of wikipedia for these new users (the majority did not even know how to open a wikipedia account and had to be walked through step by step in class), in addition to getting new information through the above discussion. ] (]) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
:::::Yes but is this going to dirrectly result in new articles or improvment to existing articles. There are far better platforms around for other tasks.] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
::::::I am still not sure yet of the exact nature of the classes. If Eml4500.f08 could explain a little bit more it would be greatly appreciated. Are the students simply using Misplaced Pages to host their homework assignments? Are they going to do any actual work on creating or improving articles? Or are they just learning how Misplaced Pages works?
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
::::::My feeling is that if the students are being taught how to use Misplaced Pages, even if they don't actually contribute much to actual articles, then it is a net positive as a whole. Some of the students will undoubtedly stay and become contributors. But we shouldn't rush to judgment here and exclude a large number of potential editors. The accounts will obviously have to respect the ]. This means one account per person. Each person's account should be unique to them. No group or shared accounts. ] (]) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
</div>
:::::::This sounds rather like the "Global Economics" affair, about the end of April, see ] and its talk page, and a long thread on AN/I ]. Two problems there were: (a) an expectation that students could "own" their articles and ask others not to edit, and (b) lack of understanding of the difference between a student essay (where original research and synthesis are the name of the game) and a Misplaced Pages article (where they are forbidden). ] (]) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
It is not simply a web site to post their HW reports, but rather a
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
medium for collaboration, not just among the students in a team,
* 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.
but also a collaboration of the whole class (i.e., among the
] '''Technical news'''
different teams), and more than that, the work is a collaboration
* 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.
between the professor and the whole class to develop online open
course material, as mentioned. Each student has an individual user
account, no share accounts, but they can edit in each other's user
namespace to collaborate on the lecture notes and HW problems in
a given HW report.


] '''Arbitration'''
There are no team accounts; the account of the team leader serves as
* 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}}.
a focal point for all team members to contribute their respective
part to the team's HW report, using their own individual account.
Each team member wants to use his/her individual account to edit so
that the history of a wiki HW report will be used to evaluate his/her
participation in the team to determine his/her final HW grade.
It is imperative that each user use his/her individual account so
to show his/her work.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
The best HW report of the whole class (i.e., of all teams in the
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
class) would serve as the spring board for the next HW report, i.e.,
each team would use the best past HW report as a starting point
to construct their next HW report, instead of using only their
own work all the time. This way, weak teams will learn from the
strongest teams, and the whole class thus collaborates together.
(Without this measure, mediocre teams remain mediocre throughout
without having the opportunity to learn from the best to improve
themselves.) Since the team work starts with the professor's lecture
presentations and HW problem assignments, the work is actually a
collaboration between the professor and the whole class.


----
Finally, recall the long-term goals already mentioned. ] (]) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
:What you have described would probably be far better met by a localised mediawiki instalation or on a free wiki host. Misplaced Pages is neither.] 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::It looks to me as if any benefit to Misplaced Pages would be entirely ancillary, and totally out of proportion to the resources used. Think of the floodgates this could open if this is allowed, and the additional burden on the servers. I'd say there's little indication that we need to wait for any more information, the course is not "How to Edit Misplaced Pages 101" -- this should be shut down. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
repost from archive:


The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
:::Indeed that does appear to be the case. However it would still be best to be diplomatic.] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
: It seems the intent is to use Misplaced Pages to post team based homework; using the accounts system to allow lecturer to see who did what. I can't see anything in the aims that fits in with Misplaced Pages's core principles - the only collaboration mentioned is within the class. As geni says, far better on a localised wiki. Oh, and lecturer getting smacked with a cluebat. ] (]) 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
::Geni and Minky have said almost everything I wanted to say. We need to thank these folks politely, then gently but ruthlessly clean out '''''all''''' these accounts in their current forms and offer guidance on how to get your own wiki software. --] &#x007C; ] 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".


* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
:::Mediawiki can be downloaded through http://www.mediawiki.org/MediaWiki but it would really be an issue for local it techs though.] 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
:We have a long tradition of driving away editors from academe through over-zealous policy-wonkery. Thank god we aren't trying to do anything whatsoever that would benefit from having a bunch of intelligent, educated people around. <small>That's called sarcasm for those of you having difficulty</small> ] (]) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
::It is extreamly well established that wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you think that is "over-zealous policy-wonkery" then your position is somewhat at odds with wikipedia norms. If they want to include editing wikipedia as part of their course we can provide plently of advice on how to do it but both the students and wikipedia will be better off if they use some other wiki (either localy hosted or on a free webhost) for what is appears they are currently proposeing to do.] 20:31, 2 September 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.}}
::(ec)I am certainly profoundly at odds with the established Misplaced Pages norm of assuming bad-faith of new editors. I am at odds with the established norm of discouraging attempts to find new methods of collaborative working. I am at odds with the established Misplaced Pages norm of discouraging bright young people from learning how to contribute effectively to this ''soi-disant'' encyclopædia. ] (]) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
:::there is no bad faith being assumed (although you do appear to be running rather close to the line) in fact there is pretty much nothing being assumed we have been very careful to find out what is being planned before doing anything. Teaching people how to contribute effectively to wikipedia is not even a side aim of the project and it's structure tends against that being atchived.] 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
::::The assumption that has been made about these accounts is that they will not contribute to the encyclopædia, and should therefor be blocked. That is as clear an assumption of bad-faith as it is possible to make. I think you have misinterpreted my comment about teaching people to contribute effectively - I meant that that is a responsibility of more experienced editors, and that in order to encourage effective contribution we should be more welcoming of new editors. ] (]) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hopefuly we can resolve the situation without resorting to blocking. We shall see.] 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I normally would agree with you about process-wonkery; however, what we have here is coursework relying upon in-team collaberation - would "outsiders" be allowed to correct any mistakes? Would that mess their course marking up? Anybody finding Misplaced Pages interesting and wanting to contribute naturally benefits all parties; the issue is however is such insular work the best way to achieve it? <small>that's a realistic view for the one of you having difficulty</small> ] (]) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


---
I believe this kind of usage would be welcome over at wikiversity. ] ] 20:35, 2 September 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.
:Exactly. I don't think these guys will cause any huge messes, per se, it's more just a fundamental issue of using Misplaced Pages - and particularly the user space - in a manner that is not acceptable. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* 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)
Hello all, I'm a student in one of these two courses and I seem to have quite the grasp as to what my professor is trying to achieve. If you have any further questions about this, shoot away. I'll start by saying that much of what you all (those opposed to allowing this endeavor to progress) have said is true. It would largely (perhaps entirely) be us students using our namespaces to communicate to each other and the professor and for the submission and evaluation of homework and notes. It was also communicated to me in class that we would ''not'' be advised to edit true Misplaced Pages articles in that in doing so we might attracts 'vandals' seeking to destroy our work.


: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)
Needless to say, although some users may stick around after the course, most of these names will probably be abandoned. Certainly, during the course, there will most likely be no contribution to WP articles--although the possibility of contributions upon course completion are entirely left up to the users themselves.
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
So in all, I believe this comes down to a rather interesting dilemma. As of now, you have at least 80 potential editors on your hands to further the cause of WP. But none of these people (under these class usernames, at least) will be doing anything to benefit WP itself during this ongoing semester. After the semester ends, however, there is the possibility that, since all these students were warmed up to the WP system over the past semester, many will stick around and choose to contribute--but this is only after the semester ends. Not to mention, throughout the entire semester, our user namespaces will be used for the sole purpose of class participation, and will not see the "outside world"--aka the rest of WP. Further still, and on the other hand, the information generated via these two classes may truly contribute to WP articles on similar subjects--especially once the course is over and students are free to use said usernames to integrate the course information into current and new WP articles.


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
The choice is yours, I hope I have explained things clearly. If you have any more questions, I'll be here. And this is my real WP username (one that I will use to contribute to WP), it has nothing to do with this course. Thanks. ] (]) 23:40, 2 September 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)
::thing is, this is an encyclopedia and class notes on a topic are not necessarily going to be good articles. You mentioned Wikiversity earlier, so you know about that project, and it sounds to me that this would be the place for what you are doing. We'd love new academic oriented editors in technology ,but do you all realize that based on past experience many of the topics may not be suitable for articles--and we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted. Nor can we restrict who might want to edit the articles. This sort of project needs considerable thought and planning. I or Ed would be very pleased to help your professor with it. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
:::wikiversity is looking to devolope course materials not carry out actual sources onsite.] 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:Getting warmed up to Misplaced Pages's software (since they won't be touching the processes) can, as we've said, be done via a local installation of the software that runs Misplaced Pages, ]. While new editors are appricated, such work on done on Misplaced Pages itself is not within the project scope, would create bad precidents, and would use resources allocated for running an encyclopedia. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::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)
:::''Edit: At DGG.'' Thanks. ''I'' didn't mention Wikiversity, haha, I believe my professor did, though. So I'd imagine he has some sort of an idea of what that is about. I'm not aware as to what it is about however I'll look it up very soon, for sure. I totally get what you're saying, I am neutral either way, honestly. I just wanted to provide the information for you all. I do have a question, though. What do you mean when you say "we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted?" If what gets deleted, the information on our namespaces? Just curious as to what you meant by that. ] (]) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::hewas probably thinking about stuff in the article namespace but stuff in the namespace is also at a fair risk of being deleted if it is outside project scope and not put there by a regular user.] 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Seeing as students are beginning to create a large number of homework pages, some are requesting unblock for username blocks, I really think someone needs to contact this professor directly and explain to him in detail about ], this is going to generate a large number of odd-looking userspaces, some of which are already at MfD. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've politely explained the situation to the professor and have given him some other alternatives at ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:48, 3 September 2008 (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)


Thank you all for your discussion, suggestions, and cooperation.
I just created the following pages in wikiversity:
and
.
It seems to work without having to create new user accounts; I used
the same user accounts under wikipedia.
Hence the wikipedia accounts that students already created
can be used under wikiversity; they can move their work to wikiversity.
Please keep these accounts, and give them some time to move the
content of their user namespaces to wikiversity.


: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)
For students who could not create their own account because the
operation was blocked, I'll ask them to create their accounts on
wikiversity.


* 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)
There are only 3 weeks until the first exam; the class should focus
*: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)
on the course material itself, instead of wikipedia matters; it was
*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
a good learning experience though.
*:::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)
Is it possible for administrators to prevent the posting of
* 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)
the current content of these user namespaces on wikiversity as
wikiversity's formal articles? The reason is to avoid potential
problems such as copyright violation, plagiarism, etc, without prior
checking and verification (even then, it may be difficult to detect
all possible violations; so another aspect of class collaboration is
that the class will scrutinize the best HW reports for any possible
violations). It would take a few "generations" of the same course
to bring the course material to a reasonable quality before making
it into formal wikiversity articles.
] (]) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
I just noticed what my student wrote above at (] (]) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)), and want to make a clarification: While students were not allowed to use the "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles, for the reason that ] mentioned, they can edit any wikipedia articles they like, provided that they use their own personal wikipedia accounts, i.e., accounts that do not begin with eas4200c and eml4500. In fact, students should not use these "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles at all, even after the semester is over, since the idea is for future students to use the same system and avoid vandals following the links to the course material. I will make a note to mention to the two classes about this point, even in wikiversity. The total number of students in both classes is close to 200; some students take both classes, so the number of actual individual accounts is less. In any case, I think we can do exactly what we set out to do in wikiversity. Thanks. ] (]) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
=== Response from Wikiversity ===
{{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)
Someone asked Wikiversity to respond to this thread. In short, '''welcome'''. Experimental uses of Mediawiki, especially in the context of real world educational courses, are very welcome over at Wikiversity. If there are any issues about what can and cannot be done, I'll be happy to coordinate with the course facilitator and assist/advise as things go along. --] (]) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you much. ] (]) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:: So. The teacher is planning to move things over to Wikiversity and Wikiversity is welcoming them. Is there anything more to be done with this? Any cleanup here on WP? Or can this one be marked as Resolved? - ] (]) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::]. --] (]) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (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.
== Why was my edit to an article removed? ==
: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 ==
{{resolved|1=Just a hum-drum BLP violation, no reason to get excited...<!-- said the joker to the thief... --> ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}


A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I just edited an article about Dave Gilbert (footballer) to state NEWS that he had recently been arreseted & charged with two counts of assault. This is the truth.. so why was it removed. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Per our ], all unsourced, contentious material is to be removed. Since your edit was not accompanied by a reference to a ], it was removed. ]] 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


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


A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah cause a reliable source isnt the person who he assaulted, you idiot. :/ <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please avoid ] when replying to editors. A ] is something like the BBC, a quality newspaper, CNN or similar source. If you can find one, the information can be re-added (in a neutrally worded fashion) and a link to the source appended to the end of the section (the easiest way is to place the URL of the source between square brackets). Personal testimony from the alleged victim is ] and can't be used. ] (]) 23:58, 1 September 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)
:Nope, you aren't a reliable source. Certainly not in a contentious BLP. Calling me an idiot won't change Misplaced Pages policy. ]] 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with Resolute. Unreliable/no sources must be dealt with, so there's no reason for this case to be given any "special" treatment. Also, I have doubts regarding edits such as . If you think you can get away with silly edits like that, ''think again''. ] (]) 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have had a bit of a news trawl (I sometimes have access to extra resources of this sort), and I can't find any sources at all for this claim. ] (]) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
== ] about content / copy editing, and how to help craft fantastic articles..... ==
{{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.


There's some great advice, insight, and information in this podcast recorded by some of wiki's finest! - If you feel you're one of those admin.s who has been drawn away from contributing content, or has become a bit distanced from the 2 million (and some!) reasons wikipedia actually exists, I think this should be required listening! I feel smarter already, and I've only heard it once. :-) ] (]) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
* Some of Misplaced Pages's finest? I don't really think so. That would be people like Giano and Geogre. Interview them and I will listen. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:* I've been told that the above is less than helpful. Here, then, is the message I was trying to convey: please do be a good chap and not use the admin noticeboard to spam things not requiring administrator attention, and while you're about it the use of hyperbole is not really appropriate here as there are many very well written guidelines and essays on the subject of writing great articles which have much wider input and from editors with much more glorious editing histories than the few you chose; beware of ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Guy, didn't you once use this noticeboard to start a section regarding the Scots Misplaced Pages, merely because you found it amusing? Yes, you did. Not only was it an entirely frivolous post in need of no admin attention, it was also found to be "borderline offensive" by at least one user. ] (]) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::: See ]. Point is, this gets spammed every episode. But I believe that PM's friends are now counseling him on this, so I apologise to everyone for being snarky about it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::For the record, I grumbled a bit at ] privately, and he mentioned to me that ] isn't a good fit for notes like this, and I've no problem not posting such things there.. Guy's grumpy and not-so-accurate comments notwithstanding, folk should feel free to drop me a note if they feel posts like the above are distracting or annoying - I guess I'll just have to see Guy next tuesday... ] (]) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)<small>now go listen folks! - I'm neither on this podcast, nor was I involved in making it, and I can honestly say it's much better than most of my driveling efforts :-)</small>
(outdent) Although this falls slightly outside my purview as comentor, the general idea of Privatemusings taking an interest in content should be pleasant news to the admin community. I agree that the community portal would be a better place to take this because it would reach a wider audience. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


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


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


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I am a bit afraid of the way the sockpuppet and multiple accounts policy might turn out. I see many users being blocked, not because they are using those alternate accounts to canvass, vote or vandalize, but because they just have multiple accounts. Take for example, there's a user, who wanted to change her username. She is a novice at Misplaced Pages and doesn't know about ], so she chooses to create a new account in ignorance. Satisfied with her new username, she wakes up the next day to find herself blocked. Rather then a complete block, a notice on her talk-page about ''just why did she create the new account'' will be more appropriate. Thus, further action will be taken after the rationale is found. (e.g. blocking, or advice)
::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 ==
Not only does this apply to the situation I described, but it applies to every situation where the user has multiple accounts. ''Should those multiple accounts be blatantly used for cavassing, voting or vandalizing or any disruptive behavior'', then no further questioning will be needed. However, should the user have multiple accounts for non-controversial and non-disruptive purposes, then those accounts should not be blocked. (e.g. accounts made for use in public areas and accounts made because of ignorant mistakes, such as the one I described above.) '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;]]&nbsp;</span>''' 04:38, 2 September 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.
::such accounts if used over the same period should be declared, & I would would favor the rules to say so. Obviously we shouldnt block unless someone refuses to close them after advice to do so, or unless its clearly abusive. The best way of preventing abuse is to require declaration, except for right to vanish. ''']''' (]) 09:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think it should only matter if the accounts are being used in the same area of discussion, and not matter if they're being used in the same timeframe. I pretty much agree with what Marlith says here, and share his concern. -- ] 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::We can add such a notice (about WP:CHU) to the create-an-account page. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


== Summer's over == == Call for mentors ==


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)
Starting tomorrow, the U.S. public school year starts again. Within the next two weeks vandalism will go up. Just reminding everyone to be vigilant. ] (]) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:In some jurisdictions, it's started already -- but you are correct, directly after ] is the traditional start of school. Such is the case here in NYC. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 05:07, 2 September 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)
: For some of us, it ] some time back :) - ] <sup>]</sup> 05:10, 2 September 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)
::Gee, I've been online since '85, and I've never heard that expression. Thanks! <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Summer? What summer? The weather in .uk has been atrocious all year, and today was worse than ever. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Here in NYC, it's already starting to feel a bit fallish, several weeks earlier than usual, and I've heard that the trees upstate are already starting to turn. Still, I had a very pleasant day at the beach today. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 08:14, 2 September 2008 (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)
::In the USA, some public schoools start in August, but they have ALL, AFAIK, start no later than the day after Labor Day. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 10:34, 2 September 2008 (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.
:::Sometimes, for some reason, it'll be two days after Labor Day, not sure why. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
: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 ]==
:::California used to not start the school year till the day after Admission Day, which is September 9, but it's been changed so that most schools start in August now. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


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


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
Hi, all - I've spent a lot of time over the weekend on the above article. As I'm sure everyone knows, it's probably our highest-traffic article right now. Serious issues keep popping up there - everything from really bad BLP violations, to POV-pushers from both political sides, and lots and lots of good-faith people who don't have a good grasp of neutrality or sourcing or the Manual of Style. There aren't many uninvolved or neutral people helping right now, though there are a few - Jossi is one standout. Rootology was really helpful but I think gave up.


(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)
I really need to take a break from working there; I think I started out pretty neutral but I may be losing my objectivity, as some of the poison I've seen going into that article has given me a lot of sympathy for the Palin family, especially the children. Also, I've been getting a lot of accusations that I work for the McCain campaign, so maybe someone should check back over the work I've done. :) I would be very grateful if some neutral people would make an attempt to keep an eye on things on that and related articles, like ] and ]. It can be hard to keep up with due to the editing volume. Thanks, all. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree that we need someone with a neutral point of view watching over this article as those who have currently claimed ownership (not going to name names) have taken us down a slippery slope of partisanship.] (]) 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Kelly might be Republican. I'm a Democrat, and I'll be voting for the Obama ticket. This is a bi-partisan effort. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Possibly tri-partisan - I'm libertarian. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Are you sure that's not ''Palin''tarian? ] (]) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:<sigh>Just as an example, the beginning of ] is now once again pushing that she is a secessionist. This is a meme circulating in certain blogs. I'm too tired to deal with this anymore. There are many other of these issues that keep coming up over and over again and there aren't enough people helping. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:The secessionist claims are now once again back in the main article, along with vague insinuations of some kind of prenatal wrongdoing for traveling before the birth of her youngest child, another blog meme. All this stuff has been exhaustively discussed on the talk page (which is now accumulating some kind of libel about her daughter's fiance being underage, another blog meme) but the previous discussions are disregarded and attempts to enforce policy are simply reverted. We're going to get a big black eye over these articles. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Palin Barnstars ===
* '''(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)
Kelly, you and several other admins and senior editors deserve a special barnstar for having tirelessly shepherded the article through the mass waves of partisan POV pushing and rampant rumormongering that have assailed it all weekend.
*'''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 ==
THANK YOU. ] (]) 08:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. <i>Two</i> more barnstars for Kelly. I think the article is shaping up and the locking is an excellent idea. Many thanks for your calm, neutral sanity in a blizzard of vicious insanity. ] (]) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== Deleted contributions request ==
===Alaska Seccession edits===
{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Can we please get someone to step in on the repeated insertion that Palin supports the succession of Alaska from the United States and is a member of this party? We have one user repeatedly inserting this fringe belief. ] (]) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{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)
* Hey, ], or some of the other associated proposals, would be real useful in a case like this.<small>Just some random canvassing.</small>--] (]) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
::This is not the place to bring up a content worry, even more so when it looks like she has indeed belonged to at least one Alaskan ''secession'' group (which is hardly a ] "belief"), maybe two, reliable sources on this are likely to pop up sooner rather than later. ] (]) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::: /me ponders who is next in succession to the throne of Alaska. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I would hope that people are checking out information before deciding its either true or a fringe belief. Part of the problem is that in the United States there are government admissions of manipulating the media for propaganda purposes.
{{abot}}


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
::: For one example the accustions that the White House lied the United States into the war in Iraq with false claims of WMD's. This involved having pentagon spokespeople appear regularly on Fox News and other cable media to present government spin as news. It continued with Scooter Libby and the Plame affair and the use of guest commentators from think tanks. These are now counts of an indictment for impeachment presently in front of the judiciary committee.


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)
::: For other examples we have the government and industry attempts to muddy the waters regarding Global Warming and peak Oil. In this sense Misplaced Pages is part of the media


: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>
::: As it happens there is a video of Sarah Palin addressing the in which acting as governor of Alaska she officially addresses their convention, mentions that she considers them an important political influence, says she shares the parties vision of the constitution and otherwise which makes it clear she is more attracted to fringe groups than merely being a supporter of Pat Buchannan indicates... 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::], 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. ==
This stuff has gotten pretty well sourced, now. It doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation at all, and seeing as the AIP is Alaska's third largest party behind Republicans and Democrats in that order (about 2%, 2.5% of the population) it's not fringe locally there. Everywhere else, maybe, but relative to her bio, early history, and Alaska, it's totally notable. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Da I don't know how things work in the US but in europe politicians frequenty have ah less mainstream political views in their youth.] 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::This wouldn't be her youth, if true. It would be when she was in her mid-late 30s and already in public service. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{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. ==
*Update: User I originally complained about was blocked by Moreschi for 48 hours. This users disruption could have been resolved HOURS beforehand had anyone bothered to try. ] (]) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::Truth be told, when you spelled it ''succession'', called it a "fringe belief" and gave neither any diffs nor a username I took it as a content dispute. ] (]) 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::Yes, I typoed the second time, but didn't typo the level 3 header. *shrug* As Kelly requested, more eyes would have been helpful but it does not seem to be a high priority, ya'll would rather point and laugh at my spelling error. ] (]) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.
:::::::I didn't laugh. Please do provide a username and some diffs next time, you'll see a much quicker response (all the more on an article like ] where changes sometimes blaze by at a few dozen each hour, making things much harder to dig through). ] (]) 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 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. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone else think that the redirect from Bristol Palin ought to be pre-emptively protected? ] (]) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}
::Done. ] (]) 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

===Sarah Palin volume===
There are a few new users/SPAs here that are starting to get into edit war territory. Could a couple more people watchlist this? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, this fellow's blown past 3rr despite a warning from me and shows no letting up. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:48 hours for him. Thanks, Root. ] (]) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ah damn. I tried to block him myself, Moreschi. Lightning fingers McGee I'll call you from now on....] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

===Politics + Religion + Drama = Fail===
For those of us watching the Palin article, you'll want to keep an eye on ] as well. I've stubbified the article from a lengthy list of controversial positions of its pastor (], whose article is currently at AfD), but - given the attention that Gov. Palin's speech on the Iraq War is receiving, it's probably prudent to watch this article as well. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===]===
This article was created yesterday, then later redirected to the ] article. I've gone ahead and protected the redirect per BLP concerns, just as we've done with ]. - ] ] 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

===Pages worth watching===
It's worth periodically skimming the list of linked to our ] article, in particular checking the list of in our article space for new POV forks.

Here are some pages on that list that were of particular concern:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] -- currently ]
*]
*]
*] (redirect page)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
**]
*] (redirect page)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (redirect page)
*]
*]
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (redirect page)
*]
*] (disambiguation page)
*] (redirect page)
*] (disambiguation page)
*] (redirect page)
*] -- currently ]
*]
*]
*]
*] (redirect page)
--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Add ] to the mix as well. I also suggest that the activities of {{user|EricDiesel}} and {{user|Elan26}} be watched since both appear to be ]ing. --''']''' (]) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Can anyone make any sense of this? Best I can make of it is that {{user|EricDiesel}} is complaining about the application of ] on the ] and ] related articles and arguing that notability is inherited. --''']''' (]) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

]: several attempts to add Palin based on -- what else? -- a Kos diary. ] (]) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Marius Fekete ==

] is pure nonsense. First of all, I'm inclined to think the person doesn't even exist. Second, after translating the Romanian profanity in it, you get that his parents are named "Dick" and "Pussy" Fekete, that he was born in the small town of "Blowjob", and that his grandfather's name is "Sticky Ass". Furthermore, the second section provides information on how he had sexual relations with Romania's current prime minister (which I'm sure would have been a big news item here in Romania if it had really happened, or at least rumors of it). Google doesn't really turn up anything on this purported "Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister" (a position I'm not sure exists). The article seems like one big hoax. ] (]) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps you should ]. ] (]) 10:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Speedied <s>G</s>A7. I will provide a copy to any editor wishing to provide ], but my research tells me this should go. --]] 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::That's actually a rather clever piece of vandalism, if I may say so myself. To your average US Misplaced Pages user, it would look legit. ] (]) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Clarified restrictions for Betacommand ==

{{discussion top}}'''Restrctions now in effect.''' ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

], ] and I, as part of an ad hoc committee, proposed the following clarifications to the restrictions on {{user|Betacommand}}. As seen in ], the proposal has been endorsed. The updated restrictions are:
:* Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on ] and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request ''before'' he may begin.

:* Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

:* Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

:* Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an ''uninvolved'' administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard ''prior'' to blocking. Blocks should be logged ].

Regards, ]] 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Before there's any dissent or opposition, Beta ''himself'' said he had no problem with these binding restrictions to Jenna in IRC. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
** Without commenting on the specific terms here, I think he should make that commitment on-wiki. ] (]) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
*These look like excellent, well-worked proposals. The original restrictions were vague because they were intended to be, because I didn't expect everyone to suddenly adopt my wording! Point 2 is the crucial one, of course. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:The first bullet may be naive and overly restrictive. Little goes through on VPR without some objections and the group rarely arrives at a well defined consensus on anything. (sideitem:)*Even currently approved tasks on other bots frequently come under heavy and unproductive criticism from a select minority (somehow silently absent when the task was approved)*. Without assigning blame to anyone, proposal by Beta would likely degenerate into a threaded unproductive shouting match. I propose changing the item to 'notifying at WP:AN/B; A consensus of posters there would decide if the task should go forward, procede to VPR, be revised/clarified/defined to a smaller subset, be tested, be canceled, or is WP:SNOW' --] (]) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::The Betacommand <s>complaint</s> notice board is more productive and less likely to become a shouting match than the Village Pump? I don't believe that. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::All notice boards should be exclusively used as notice boards. If they are being used as complaint boards by the community at large they should be shutdown and retooled. If a user specific notice board is being used as an attack board it should be blanked and protected; then an oversight investigation should be conducted. --] (]) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:The Second bullet should be dependent on the first. Should he gain approval for a task, he should conduct a test, review the results carefully, amend the results to the request and if no issues are found, he should precede to running the remainder of the approved subset. If he's given approval to run a task he does not need to carefully check every single edit on that task as it would be impractical. He should however review any reported issues, stop the task, correct the edit and the logic that caused it, all while interacting civilly. --] (]) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

* Lets see what people that are logged in on their accounts have to say. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::(ec)Could I suggest that this is likely to become a lengthy thread, and that everyone interested in Beta and his behavior is already going to follow the See Also link, so could someone move this announcement to ] preemptively? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::* It was actually moved here to announce that there was consensus already and that Beta had agreed to the terms without a problem. Until the IP derailed it... <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Pesky 'anyone can edit' clause. Sorry to intrude on your 'private consensus' with my 'may be' suggestion. --] (]) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I agree all the way with the first two. I'd suggest rewording the third for clarity; how about ''Beta may make no more than 40 edits in any rolling 10-minute period''? I believe it achieves the same effect and removes the material about averages and single-minutes etc. The fourth point I make no comment on, as nothing will come of it... <font color="#FFA000">╟─]§]►]─╢</font> 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:To help clarify an issue from the previous events (and thus prevent issues in future), do these restrict the use of semi-automated tools, such as Twinkle or the like? Yes, restricting edits to average 4 a minute will help make his edits not look like automated ones, but this doesn't mean he cannot use such tools if they are effective, and all the other points stated seem to suggest that such tools aren't a problem as long as they fall into the outlined steps. --] 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Probably just fine to leave as it is. If someone were a good enough programmer they could edit their hearts out and we'd never know. This is just a safety check as I read it. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

*TreasuryTag, that seems reasonable to me, if others agree it should be changed.
*These restrictions allow for the use of semi-automated tools, such as TW and AWB, however, Betacommand must check every edit to ensure it is not creating one problem while fixing another, for example. The restriction on edits per minute is to ensure he's taking the necessary time to check the edits. I also spoke with him in IRC, letting him know not to game the wording (i.e. making 40 edits in one minute and resting for nine); he agreed not to do so. He understands that the "in a 10 minute period of time" is simply some padding in case he should accidentally make 5 edits in one minute during a run where he otherwise remains in the restricted limits, for example. ]] 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
*Good restrictions, well done.]] 02:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*I suppport this proposal, with the ferverent hope that it keeps betacommand, his supporters, and his detractors away from notice boards, irc, and such pages ... and focused on encyclopedic activities. --] (]) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*:Amen. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== WikiProject secession ==

{{report top|This appears to be nothing more than a content dispute that should be taken up at the relevant article or project talk page, and if that fails, go to ], which conveniently does ''not'' include this page. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
This is a pretty lame argument, so I'm bringing it to the de-facto "complaints department". ] (or at least some of its members) decided to break off from ]; the associated argument is on ]. The to exclude NYSR, which is frankly silly. Several editors have been replacing the {{tl|USRD}} template with {{tl|NYSR}}. This type of argument is what caused ]. --] 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Move along, nothing to see here. A productive subproject of U.S. Roads separated and became its own project. Afterward NE2 created a small quarrel about article tagging. We have FA drives to get back to. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::''I'' created the quarrel? You are one of several that are retagging, and I don't know why, since you haven't done anything road-related in the past. --] 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually I'm conominator of a current FAC under the New York Roads project. I've been doing quite a bit on the content side, but stayed away from the US Roads project drama. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry - I don't mean to belittle any content contributions. You have, however, very clearly entered the "drama" with the retagging. --] 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I began tagging before there was any complaint. And the only one who has objected is you. Three different people had already explained to you that this is uncontroversial wikignome work before you brought the matter to an administrative noticeboard. Now I don't wish to file a ] complaint. I would be glad to mark this thread ''resolved'' with your consent and walk away. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::The only one who seems to be disrupting to make a point is NYSR, except that nobody's explained what the point is. You hinted at it on my talk page, when you said "I've been told you were one of the principal motivating forces behind the split." Well, I'm waiting for an explanation. --] 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:I don't see what the problem is here. NYSR made a "really important and final decision" regarding their status within USRD. We're only respecting that decision by allowing them to proceed with it. I wish them the best of luck, and I'm truly sad to see them go, but it was their decision, not ours. I will welcome them back at any time, but for now, this relationship is being separated. They filed for divorce, let us let go peacefully. ] (]) 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::The problem is that they split for no reason, and expect us to simply play along with their little game. I refuse. --] 19:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't recall WikiProjects having any authority over users. --] (]) 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::WikiProjects are composed of users; when I say "NYSR" it's a ] for "NYSR members". --] 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about edits like ? I made a list of roads on the NRHP, and New York is being removed? --] 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:If there has been any accidental change to articles that also cover national roads we would gladly correct it. No administrative attention is required for that. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For one, I see nothing here that requires administrator attention. For another, I wasn't aware that editors could only edit NY roads, OR other roads. I thought we could edit, well, pretty much anything we wanted to. I guess there's a question of possible competing standards, but that, again, does not require admin attention. So what, pray tell, is the kerfluffle? The only drama I see is on the US Roads side removing New York, as if two wikiprojects can't have a crossover. Less QQ, more pewpew, please. --] (]) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:There's been an aversion to overlap in USRD for a long time, earlier with USRD and ] (the latter a dead project that was set up because some USRD editors didn't want some articles). Finally it was accepted that a few major streets can be in both. Now NYSR decided that it didn't want its articles in USRD (they had always been dual-tagged). --] 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Tags mean almost nothing. I for one have gone to a WP through its talk page tag maybe 3 times in my years here. What makes no sense is removing New York roads from the USRD scope. Both sides need to stop being children: NYSR, you can share. USRD, you don't have to be children and remove all vestige of it. NYSR is a clear child project of USRD, and as such the proper tag is probably NYSR, but that's about all I can see here that needs changing. --] (]) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::For ease of use, especially on multiple-state articles like ], the subprojects - and states without their own subprojects - have been incorporated into the USRD template. This is similar to the New York City Subway template being part of trains, such as at ]. Splitting the template seems to be simply making a point, unless they plan to use different assessment and importance ratings. --] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::NYSR asked to be removed from the USRD scope at ]. We've respected that decision. NE2 has decided to object. I don't like the fact that one of the 50 states is separating, but I respect their decision. We are only updating our respective project pages to reflect the fact that NYSR has been removed from our project's scope. That's all. Like I said before, please let us let go in peace. I would further assume that as time passes, NYSR as a project will make their own decisions suited to NY roads that will diverge from USRD's more generalized and nationalized criteria. As an example, they may or may not enhance a road's importance rating just because it is on the National Highway System. ] (]) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::States have always been allowed to make their own importance judgments, and, to the extent that they keep with projectwide guidelines, their own guidelines as best suited to the state. All I see here is a symbolic move. --] 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::IMO, it's improper to remove NY from your scope; it's a child project, is it not? By that logic, it is intrinsically within your scope. And either way, projects can and do overlap. WP:Countries exists; so does WP:Europe. Is Austria not within the scope of WP:Countries? (Not to mention the existence of WP:Austria!) What is simplest for the reader looking to be a new editor? In my opinion again, it's not confusing him with strange limits on a scope. WP:Countries, I doubt, would ever agree to omit Austria from its scope just because WP:Austria wanted it. --] (]) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting thread closure: the relative scope of two wikiprojects really isn't a matter for administrator intervention. I hope the projects can collaborate on friendly terms in the future, and the best way to foster that is to let this heal quietly. With respect toward all, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:When you heal something, it goes away. This "gash" will remain in USRD. --] 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem here that USRD has a set of guidelines that we like all our pages to follow. This means we have standardised section names, our maps have a standard legend, we have a standard infobox, the exit lists follow a certain format, etc. If NYSR is a child project of USRD, then it would have to follow these guidelines just the same as our other successful projects like Michigan and Utah. If they're on their own, they can do whatever they want, and I have a feeling that's one of the reasons why they split. (If they're dual-tagged, then the USRD standards will still apply and they won't get the split they want.) Well, that, and the fact that a lot of us are kind of jaded about FAC so we don't throw them a ticker-tape parade every time one of their FACs pass. Add to that the occurrence of NYSR participants flooding our A-Class review process, and then not contributing back desperately-needed reviews to the other states, and, well, I'm sort of in the same boat as Imzadi...let them just go. —]] <span style="font-size:75%">]]</span> 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, and your local guidelines conflicted with Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style and the New York Roads FACs got caught in the crunch. This venue, however, is the administrators' noticeboard--and nothing in that line of discussion requires administrative attention. Again, requesting closure. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Can you point me to this conflict with the MOS? The obvious thing is to change the local guidelines. --] 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Articles have to follow the Manual of Style, they don't have to follow the guidelines of individual wikiprojects (see ]). If you can't establish a consensus for your guidelines, then they aren't going to be follow, that's just how it works. No-one is violating any policy that I can see, so there is no need for an AN discussion since there is nothing any admin can do to help the situation. --] (]) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{report bottom}}

== Still at it? ==

See , regarding a user who was blocked for Incivility and wilful disruption, and then unblocked with a promise to behave. Several of his edits since the unblock have been problematic, as discussed above. The following series of edits are disturbing in that regard: , adds ref to WP article. Another user leaves him a explaining that Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used as sources for other Misplaced Pages articles. , restores removal of inappropriate source. , restores again, with the edit summary "oh yes I can."

Now, while I ''think'' this user wants to contribute usefully, I also think that he's been given an awful lot of slack, and I'm wondering whether it may be time for another block. ] (]) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:1 week block, and a suggestion they re-examine the way in which they are interacting with other contributors. As usual, I am not so wedded to my actions to need notifying that they may be overturned - but I would hope any unblocking admin ensures they understand that a resumption of the previous mannerisms will not be tolerated. ] (]) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So the record's complete, we have two edits from this morning illustrating a similar attitude. Specifically, after being asked not to, he's re-adding links to myspace and imdb that's the same ''name'' as the article's subject but different ''people'', and to a mirror page. ] (]/]) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Sometimes I think he is trying to contribute usefully and is simply incompetent; at other times I think he's being intentionally disruptive. His behavior at ] has been exceedingly bizarre from first to last—especially when he started readding the MySpace link after admitting in the ] that he was mistaken in identifying the article's subject with two other women. And it's hard to know what to think about (note the article's topic). ] (]) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, and does anyone other than me find his (after some messing about in his user space) kind of suspicious? ] (]) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Note his unblock request reason: "The reason I find it difficult to be civil is because of the fact I have aspergers. I recommend you read the article on it." This screams troll. As an aside, on his talk page he claims to occasionally use , but he has only used it once, and not since the block. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's got a bunch of socks either. ] (]) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

: Aspergers my Irish Ass!! Aspergers Syndrome is a high functioning form of Autism where the person who has it cannot understand word play, speak in literal terms only and usually are not capable of lying.
I'm thinking '''troll''' here.
<span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Request to unblock another editor ==

''The following discussion has been moved from ] - I would welcome any other admin's view on this'' &nbsp;—&nbsp;]<sub>&nbsp;(]/])</sub> 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

] has been blocked by ] for violation of ]. The discussion is ]. Although Jeremy Bolwell - who is a prolific editor and valued contributor to articles - has been guilty of overlinking and other stylistic transgressions in the past (a point raised by me and others on several occasions - see his talk page), he has now agreed to abide by guidelines, and punishment by a temporary block seems extremely harsh for what is, in essence, a difference over the interpretation of a stylistic guideline. Can someone please look at it with a view to overturning Tivedshambo's decision? ] (]) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:'''Comment:''' The decision to block Jeremy was not a decision I took lightly. I had hoped that it would not come to this, but Jeremy was warned, by another admin as well as myself , that he would be blocked if he persisted in overlinking. This is in accordance with ] - ''persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive''. Although I believe that Jeremy is acting in good faith, he persisted in making edits like , in which, while adding some good links, he also continued to add unneccesary links. I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block. I've also suggested that he looks at other ways he can improve Misplaced Pages when his block expires, rather than merely linking words, and have stated I will unblock him if he agrees to this.&nbsp;—&nbsp;]<sub>&nbsp;(]/])</sub> 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::''"I will unblock him if he agrees to'' " sounds pretty close to bullying to me - or at least over-interpretation of an admin's proper role. Any cursory examination of Jeremy Bolwell's record would reveal that his contributions to articles (while sometimes misguided) have been far greater than simply adding square brackets to words. ] (]) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Violation of ]? This is taking the MoS way too far. <small>Quote by the blocking admin prior to the block</small>''You have already been warned about this, and if you continue to carry on, I will have to consider your actions as vandalism'' - Please read ] before making any more blocks. Not adhering to the MoS is explicitly stated in the "not vandalism" section. This is definitely excessive. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::''"I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block"'' - if you feel that a warning from you would be ignored because the editor in question feels that you are bullying him, then perhaps it would be better to leave any decision about a block to an uninvolved admin? ] (]) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::(e/c) Ok - I'll admit I shouldn't have used the word vandalism. But the block was not for vandalism, it was for violation of guidelines. I was extremely reluctant to do it, but eventually something has to be done beyond a sequence of repeated warnings. Be that as it may, if the general consensus of admins is that I was incorrect to make this block, feel free to overturn it (I'm going off-wiki for the night now), but I'd welcome suggestions of how I could have handled the situation better, whilst persuading Jeremy to conform with the MOS.&nbsp;—&nbsp;]<sub>&nbsp;(]/])</sub> 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::(e/c) I don't think Jeremy's edits were vandalism at all. He has many useful, constructive edits, but he does have a propensity for overlinking, apparently based on a philosophy about learning. I am a bit sad to see him blocked, but looking over his Sep 2 edits, some of them do seem to be overlinking despite his agreement to stop doing this. I count about 9 editors who've spoken with him about this via his user talk page, so the community clearly views it as disruptive. I might have blocked for a shorter period, given that it's his first block and that the guideline is somewhat open to interpretation, but it does seem a block was warranted; perhaps Jeremy should just avoid adding inline links for the time being, and perhaps Tivedshambo would consider shortening the block. ] (]) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Just my two cents - that's not a good block. I looked at the version he created and it definetly not vandalism, it doesn't drag down the article, it's just links for pity sake. I really don't belive the block was warrented, but then again, that's just my two cents.
<span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::IMHO Jeremy's contribs were not vandalism, however his decision to go back and continue to overlink after agreeing to stop ''is'' ] and borders on being ]. But becuase the behaviour is borderline it might have been better to seek community consensus for sanctions rather than blocking unilaterally. A block for an MOS violation will always come up against the worthy counter-argument of WP:IAR--] <sup>]</sup> 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Weird hole in my experience ==

I have just discovered that, despite having been an admin for over a year, I have no idea how to do the technical part of closing a deletion discussion.

I've just given ] a fairly obvious speedy deletion, but there's also ]. Digging around in the deletion process pages gives me a lot of advice on how to interpret the !votes made in such a discussion, but nothing about what code to put where. Some of it I could guess--I can see the templates other people are using--but I'm not sure if there's more to it than just archiving the discussion, or what.

Any advice? Also, is this process actually recorded anywhere? If so, we should link to it from more places, like ] and ]. --] ] 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:I usually follow the process ], and keep a link handy in my userspace. --]] 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Aha, there it is! Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. :) --] ] 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::For most of the more technical pages, like ], there is a small link in the upper right of the page with "Administrator Instructions." Took me a while to find it at first too :)
:::Is there an automated script for this, per chance? <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes. Sorry I can't be of more help. Look on ] - I think there's something in there. --]] 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::] (the extra tabs only show up in the edit mode) ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== High level / long term vandalism problem ==

{{resolved}}
There is a consitant high level of consistant vandalism on the ] article. Article was semi-portected once for 2 weeks but when semi-protection ends vandalism immediately starts again. The vanadalism is so bad on the article almost all edits to it are vandalism. As few non-users contribute to this article and 99% of those non-users who do are vandals I think an indefinate semi-protection is required such as that on the ] article. The nature of the subject of the article unfortunately gets the attention of a lot of kids/teenagers, people who just haven't grown up repeatedly vandalising the article. ] (]) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Semi-protected. ] (]) 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::From now on all vandalism to the ] shall be called '''Mandalism'''. It is here so decreed.--]] 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
] This decree has been approved by ]. ]''']''' 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:How do we call vandalism to ]? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Van<sup>2</sup>dalism. ] (]) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::How are you admins going to handle vandalism to ], considering ? ] (]) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: You laugh at person who commits that. --''']''' 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] - multiple concerns ==

{{resolved|Editor warned — ]] 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

I was going to warn the editor directly, but after reviewing Charmed36 talk page I realized that this editor pay's zero attention to warnings. I haven't done an extensive review of Charmed36's edits, the snappy edit summaries and talk page warning were enough to concern me. The issue that drew my attention to Charmed36 was a recent edit summary whereby Charmed36 reverted an IP with the edit summary "your just an IP". Just as concerning was the fact that the IP provided a source and Charmed36 reverted to the previous UNSOURCED version. See .

Charmed36's edits, use of edit summaries, elitism and general OWNERSHIP issue's should be punished. Charmed36 has control of a number of articles relating to varies singers and groups. This needs to be handled and Charmed36's recent contributions need an extensive review to find the true extent of potential damage. — ]] 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wow, that isn't even an insult. That's is...pure, demeaning disrespect. If anyone ever told me that when I was starting I would never come back to Misplaced Pages. Wow. --]] 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Agree it is bad, first time I've seen that. Well, I'm sure an admin will read this post eventually....— ]] 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've placed a AGF level 3 warning template on their talkpage. If this is disregarded like everything else on that page I would consider a 2 day long block sufficient to get their attention. ] (]) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm gonna keep a close eye on it for a few weeks, see what occurs. I'm shocked that Charmed36 hasn't been blocked since 2006. Charmed has been unduly lucky. — ]] 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

] has been constantly attacking me, telling lies, making sockpuppet allegations and deliberate attempts to drive me off of Misplaced Pages. He will not stop and needs to be dealt with. He has engaged in vandalism of several baseball card images, which I had to fix. He does not listen to others. He gives ultimatums and threats. He is a major problem. He needs to be dealt with now. ] (]) 05:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:A quick scan shows that you guys are clashing over some baseball card images, correct? Please provide some DIFFs for what you're talking aboout, right now this seems retaliatory over him telling you he would report you to ]. ] (]) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:You want DIFFs showing Libro0's bad behavior? Here are ''some'' of them. Think of it as a sampler.

:Of course there is more of Libro0's lies, disruptive behavior and other assorted nonsense. Finding it all would take a great deal of time. ] (]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guys disruptive edits include but are not limited to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . These are mostly unwarranted reverts, removal of verifiable info, inclusion of unverifiable info, foul language on user talk, etc. He also has a problem with discussing issues on the talk pages. Any attempt made to find resolution on content are met with pointless and argumentative comments as can be seen ] and ]. He is a convicted sock puppet as can be seen ]. Recently as of 03:54, 3 September 2008 to 04:12, 3 September 2008 he removed a number of "No source" tags from image pages without providing the proper information requested by the tags. ] (]) 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did say I would report him to ] on account he has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages for quite a few months now. He has prevented me from adding any encyclopedic content yet has contributed nothing to the pages himself. ] (]) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:More lies. There was no sockpuppet proof and if anyone has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages it is ]. I have contributed images (which Libro0 claims are not sourced, yet a proper source is given) and organized the pages. All ] has done is deliberately make edits to get me to revert them since he has provided strange sources.. Basically everything ] says is a lie or is in some way to further his agenda. He is the one who is driving others away from the baseball card pages. He has a vendetta. He has an agenda. He is a problem that needs to be dealt with. He is the one that ignores other user's attempts to solve problems. He is the one who screams sockpuppet at those who disagree with him. He makes passive aggressive personal attacks. He is the one that is the instigator. He is the one wasting people's time by insisting on keeping this feud going. He needs to be stopped! ] (]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


] also has a tendency to blank his talk page of any warnings he has received by mediators or admins. He basically ignores any warnings given to him. , , , , . ] (]) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:They were all done by Libro0 and his allies. ] (]) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Both of you should read ]. You've given far too many examples and absolutely no context to work with. I've clicked on 6-8 of each of your DIFFS, and I can't understand what you're trying to show the other editor is doing. My random sample just turns up discussions and reversions, with no context to explain why they violate wikipedia policies. My advice to you both, if you want to show the other editor is violating policy, give '''three''' DIFFs and explain specifically the problem with the edit. Show us very specifically what the problem is. ] (]) 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will offer three particular situations that should be clear.
'''1.''' I remove the 1968 OPC CFL sets on account there is no verifiable proof that they belong on a Topps page.
. I also changed an invalid citation about the type
of ink used and provided a valid reference for it .
He then replaces the OPC CFL set without showing any source for its inclusion as well as replacing the ink statement with
the invalid citation. .

'''2.''' I removed a needless Hockey section from both ] and ] since Topps did not produce Hockey cards in those years.
,
He then replaces the sections.
,
In an attempt to accomodate him I decided to write the information in the sections instead.
,
.
He again removed the information.
,
.
I finally decided to place the information on the talk pages instead.

'''3.''' With regard to his recent images problems: I placed some tags on images that did not properly state the source of the images or who made them, etc. .
The info he has used is not valid. Nevertheless he removed the tags without supplying the info.
. There are,
of course numerous images with this problem.

These are just a sampling of the problems that I was trying to display. Another area that is troubling presents itself above with his DIFFs. I browsed though most of them and found mostly legitimate discussions that I had with him. Hardly bad behavior. ] (]) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*Have you considered a ] or other ]? ] (]) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC cannot be used since it requires two users to have tried to resolve a dispute. No one has been willing to offer any assistance. Yes, I have asked for assistance. Other DRs like Wikiquette alerts also went ignored as has this board. The only place that did anything was SSP, which blocked him for 24 hours. He has ignored everyone else and the discussion pages have proven pointless. ] (]) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


*As someone who has had problems with Libro0 after having him accuse me of being Baseball Card Guy's sockpuppet after trying to get the two of them to stop their schoolyard bickering, I have been watching these two. Their recent exchanges at ] and ] show that they both seem to have some ownership issues and the two of them can't seem to have a any sort of proper discussion. My attempts to contact both of them in the past were rebuffed in the case of Baseball Card Guy and resulted in attacks from Libro0 including two unproven sockpuppet allegations, with me keeping an eye on what he is doing to nip any further false allegations in the bud. This ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation that Libro0 is a prime example of the bad faith on his part. On the other hand Baseball Card Guy is trying to bait Libro0 with a trap using ] as the edit summary for all those.

I have held off doing any editing of the baseball card articles because of the antics of these two. I have wasted enough time energy and effort here dealing with the petty bickering between these two and have had enough of it. This is another escalation. How many others have they scared off into editing not wanting to get caught up in their little war?

The two of them will not listen to reason and I think that any attempts at a request for comments or mediation will fall on deaf ears from both parties, or at least lip service being paid to it.

Both users have made some good contributions, but that is really offset by this epic battle between the two. We would probably all be better of banning both Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy. They have wasted people's time with their bickering, allegations, playing of the system and other bad behavior. It would save everyone a great deal of time and effort just banning these two problem users! ] (]) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:This is the reason I accused Your Radio Enemy of being a sockpuppet. I have provided evidence of Baseball Card Guy's disruptive behavior while he has provided no evidence that I am disruptive. For some reason YRE wants both of us banned. It looks suspicious. It looks to me like you are willing to lose a sock as long as I go down with it. Furthermore, how do you know that he was trying to bait me with a trap? I never even realized that was the case. I just thought he went on a crazed rampage. You seem to know precisely what his intentions were. Both of you contribute no content and are both resistant to my contributions. I explained three distinct situations above yet I have not seen you support me in any of those. Can you explain why? ] (]) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:: This is ridiculous. If you two can not work together leave Misplaced Pages. I don't care if I get in trouble for being uncivil. You two have finally pushed me to the edge and have become a huge nuisance. Your squabbling is disruptive and unproductive. You are running low on the communities Good Faith and again frankly I have none for you two. Quit, be blocked or not go near each other. Those are your options. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font><sup>Not an admin</sup>&nbsp; 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to provide DIFFs in context. I did so. It would be appreciated if that was acknowledged. If you have nothing constructive to add other than an emotional outburst then I suggest '''you''' leave Misplaced Pages. I fell off the edge long before you ever got there because it appears to me that policy and guidelines are just a bit of decor on this site. My faith in this place has diminished tremendously because people like Rob here want to take the easy way out. Just 'Quit'. Sorry Rob, but there are standards to upheld. On principle I refuse to simply just let people intimidate me. So don't come out here and pretend you are suffering and threaten to block. I am a part of this community and I am following the rules. I don't need you to tell me how ridiculous this situation is. I have had to watch the rules be ignored and watch this community ignore the rule breakers. If you are a real community then act like it. Get some focus and address the actual problems. Do not undermine the integrity of this encyclopedia or these notice boards by acting like you can just blow people off because you are annoyed. When you do this you are as much a nuisance as all the troublemakers out there. ] (]) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::You two have just been wasting the communities time and you have drained the community of it's Good Faith. A lot of us have tried to mediate me included. But those mediations fell on deaf ears and at times were taken out of context. You have done nothing but fight. I could go through the archives and pull up more stuff on you two than Grawp and that is saying something. You two only have 4 options on retrospect. Here are your options, Quit Misplaced Pages, Be Blocked for disruption and incivility (I can not block, but I bet there are a few admin out there debating), Just stay away from each other, or work together. I honestly do not want to see another report here or anywhere filed by one of you against the other. This is not what the noticeboard is about. This is for the community at whole to be informed of problems. Not for a couple of good editors to fight. We have lost a lot of good people because of issues like this. Do not become like them and choose the best option. The one that will help you two and the community at large. <b><font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#9900CC">]</font><font color="#CC00CC">]</font><font color="#FF99FF">]</font></font></b>&nbsp; 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Libro0, at first I did not support you because you were wrong. Then after your continuing false allegations, it would be impossible to support you. I tried offering an olive branch to both of you. Baseball Card Guy flat out rejected it. You on the other hand spun it off into a series of sockpuppet allegations filled passive aggressive attacks. You have done nothing but engender bad faith through your actions.

:You have intentionally engaged in actions that have egged Baseball Card Guy on and he has done the same to you in return. As for how I knew he was setting a trap for you I mentioned it above, but I take it you aren't a Star Wars fan or have no idea of the meme that is ]. Basically it was said here and he used Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for the edits I mention above. What is the relevance of Admiral Ackbar with regard to a trap? The character's most famous line in Return of the Jedi was "It's a trap!"

:We have progressed beyond a petty argument about baseball cards into two users who seem hellbent on fighting to the death. I spend most of my time on here now seeing if Libro0 has made another false sockpuppet allegation against me and seeing if Baseball Card Guy is out setting traps for Libro0 which will make me or someone else look like a sockpuppet. (Although thanks to this I found a couple of problems with some articles and was able to fix them, so at least some good has come out of this idiotic nonsense!) This has devolved into a Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck cartoon - ''Duck Season. Rabbit Season. Duck Season.'' These two will never stop by themselves. ''Can we just ban these two and be done with this massive waste of everyone else's time?'' ] (]) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I chose the best possible option which was to expand the base of editors for the baseball card pages. I have asked people to join in and lend their expertise. Several hundred at least. This community was lacking in knowledgeable people on this subject. ] (]) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:So the best possible option is to harass and falsely accuse others who contribute? That is what you did to me. You have driven me away from editing the baseball card pages with your childish behavior especially this ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation . That was uncalled for. You state ''"You clearly want me to leave. I will, if you can complete one of the two following tasks in 24 hours of the posting of this message."'' Up to that point, I didn't want you to leave, I asked nicely for you ''and'' Baseball Card Guy to stop and take a time out and then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Neither of you listened and then you posted your ultimatum. You eventually said the following which basically accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy: ''"Given that you did not complete the tasks I suggest that you step aside and allow people who have the information to edit the page. Keep in mind that you have been warned about unwarranted reverts. Further disruption will result in a disciplinary report and any sock evidence will be posted."'' You dragged me into this mess. Your opponent has dragged me deeper. I have had it with you two. Is it any wonder why I want '''both''' of you banned? The two of you have wasted my time, have wasted several other users time, several admins time with your back and forth wars. Libro0 keeps making these passive aggressive and somewhat pompous statements claiming that he is following guidelines and trying to work with the community, yet his behavior reveals the opposite. His opponent Baseball Card Guy seems to do the same thing, albeit on a less grander scale than Libro0. The two of them are dragging the community down. They are both instigators and are both trying to play the system to get what they want. They need to be stopped. I am sick and tired of defending myself against Libro0 and his accusations. ''The two of them need to be banned so the rest of us can stop wasting our time. It is in the best interests of everyone in the community!'' ] (]) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be banned? it is ] who is doing all of this. I just want him to stop attacking me. I just use the same tactics ] uses. ] is the problem ban him. ] says he is following policy and consensus when he is not he is a liar who just wants his way and acts like a big bully if he doesn't get what he wants. He needs to be banned. I am not some big sockpuppeter. ] probably has been running sockpuppets to make it look like I am running sockpuppets. ] seems to do anything and does things like a sneaky person. Ban ]! ] (]) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. I'll block both of you if either of you whine about the other one again. We have an encyclopedia to write, and you two are getting in the way. Either take it to dispute resolution, or shut up; AN has no more it can do for you except remove you as annoyances. --] (]) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*] has already escalated things with this and this . ] (]) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Is the subject of this single-editor article real or is it a hoax? --] (]) 07:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Uhh, the ] quality of the movie poster title suggests that someone has an overactive imagination. And weak knowledge of which studio KND is produced by (that would be ], not Universal). <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 07:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Nuked from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Could be our least favorite vandal/hoaxer, but I think a CU would be declined for fishing. ] (]) 07:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Still need ] taken out, which is a faked version of ]. I was unable to put a speedy tag on it because the page was never created in the database. <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks. It will be nuked on Commons. --] (]) 09:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::No way did that poster come from anything having to do with Universal or Warner, even as a leaked, quickly dashed off draft. ] (]) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== IP adding frivolous talkpage banners ==

I've encountered an IP from the 88.105.X.X range adding a bunch of frivolous talkpage banners to a number of talkpages. I have reverted some of these edits, particularly on ], as talkpage clutter and frivolous however the editor has restored the banners on a couple of articles. --''']''' (]) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:They all look at least potentially valid to me. Why not try discussing it first, instead of slapping a vandalism warning on the editor's talkpage?<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;]]<small>&nbsp;12:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</small></font>
::The ] article already had a picture, and the tags over-wrote one of the project tags... The "heated debate" thing shouldn't really be added unless there's a history of heated debates (imo), but I haven't looked into that too much. The project tags could do with a banner shell. As for the economic crisis...not sure what photo could be found to represent that... –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 12:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah oh, didn't realise the Data one already had a picture. (I can think of plenty of potential "economic crisis" photos – empty shelves, queues at soup kitchens/unemployment offices, hyperinflated banknotes with a string of zeroes...)<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;]]</font> 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Well stop talking and ] ! ;> –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Looking... on reading that article, it's in a very dodgy and US-centric state – the highest profile casualty (at least, from where I'm sitting), ], was based in Canada, which isn't even ''mentioned''. (No, I don't intend adding it myself; I know nothing about Canada or airlines).<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;]]</font> 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::bah...touche. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::{{tl|talkheader}} shouldn't be randomly added to talkpages unless there is an preexisting issues that {{tl|talkheader}} address. That is part of {{tl|talkheader}} documentation. Also, one shouldn't random add {{tl|todo}} templates either unless one is going to create a todo list for the article. The same goes for {{tl|reqphoto}}, especially when the articles already have images on them, or including a image is like to result in POV pushing (ie Economic crisis of 2008) in an already bias and weaselly worded article. And the tmbox "notes" the editor leaves are entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. But the IP range needs to be watched since he or she has already ignored warnings about adding frivolous takpage banners twice. And for the record, while I did leave two of the three warnings the editor has received. Neither of my warnings were generated by a "warning template". I completely wrote them on my own. But the editor showed no interest in discussing the matter after my first warning. --''']''' (]) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Long term, slow, BLP edit war on ] ==

I'd previously notified ] of , but didn't get much input. Two editors have been engaged in a ~1x/day revert war on this article for a couple of weeks. I tried to intervene as a 3O, but I did not seem to have any luck at coaxing the editors into modifying their ways. I have no doubt they could benefit from intervention from someone with the admin bit and a strong BLP background. ] (]) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== RFC on Civility restrictions and other questions ==

I have started a RFC, available at ], about the questions the community and the ArbComm has raised with regard to ]. Comment is appreciated there. ] (]) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Estimating rangeblock collateral damage ==

So over at the Ref Desk we've got a fun fellow who drops by occasionally, usually to tell us the latest rumormongering to come out of Fox News (it's always on '''RIGHT NOW!''' if only we'll go and watch), and as such, I've come to think of him as the ]. For the desk itself, this isn't a big deal, but he's usually then off to add his random speculations to article space too (often interspersed with out-and-out vandalism), and that necessitates cleanup. He's acknowledged and then ignored warnings time and again, so I've concluded that, when I see him actively resume his nonsense, it's time to just block. So now the meat of the question:

He's in a couple of pretty tight IP ranges most of the time. Is there a way I can pull recent changes for a range in total to estimate what the collateral damage to helpful IP editors might be? Alternately, do I just need to be talked down from the ledge of precipitous action? &mdash; ] 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*I don't know, but you may want to change the ] you are using. :) ] (]) 16:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*There is a tool , but it's currently disabled for the English Misplaced Pages for performance reasons. However, a limited amount of collateral checking is something that ] can do, so if you let me know the ranges, I can check them for you. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
**] showed me this one that works via your monobook: <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is geared up for football season</font></b> 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
***Or instead of importing the gadget into your monobook, you can just turn it on in preferences. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] backlog building up again ==

Every little bit helps. ''']''' '']'' 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:If you're looking for an easy one, ] is nice and short ;) ] (]/]) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Insult ==

Hi. The ] who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language ], has started to insult me on for reverting this act with regard to what sources say.
Can anybody to something about these insults?--] (]) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)--] (]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:As far as insults go here, it seems fairly minor to me, however, you can always raise it at ] if you wish. There seems to be no need for Admin intervention just yet. --]] 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is a clear example of personal attack. I'll surely raise it at Wikiquette Alerts. Thanks for your attention.--] (]) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--] (]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::This is the text of my post on Wikiquette alert. I hope you admins here also do something about it:<br>
Hi. I posted this on admins board and they sent me here:
The ] who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language ], and states his reason for this as "not giving ammunition to the "separatists"" has started to insult me on just because I try to adjust the fact with regard to what sources say. He supposed that I come from Afganistan and a place called Tafresh and used those names as (in his clearly racist opinion) deragatory terms for humiliating me. And continued with "shut your big mouth" and called my corrections "vandalization". All because I asked him if he speaks Persian? In other wikipedias where I'm active such an insult surely is faced with banning for a long time. I ask you to do something about this personal attack. Not doing anything about this user has boldened him to chase me in another Wikipedias and blindly reverting my edits without any reason or discussion. This is a clear case of harrasment.--] (]) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--] (]) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Would this block be justified? (Rusty admin asks) ==

I am an admin, a long-time one, but inactive over the last little bit. My question: does ? He's been uploading non-free images non-stop, and deleting the warnings against doing so, off his talk page. Obviously, he has too much time and no plans to stop. Block? -- ] (]) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Warn then block. You are correct. Be sure he knows that he has to justify why those non-free images are needed. See ] for the templates. —— ''']]'''</font> 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== schoolblock ==

{{Resolved|1=Schoolblock endorsed. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}
I've just blocked anon account ], but am requesting input. The user is a persistent vandal who had received a final warning several edits before I blocked. The block history reveals that the ip has been blocked several times before, the last couple being schoolblocks, the most recent for 6 months. Based on the block history, I schoolblocked as well, for 7 months, and placed the schoolblock tag on the user talk page. I've never done a schoolblock before; is some sort of additional check needed, or is the previous block history sufficient? ] (]) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:As long as it was anon-only/account creation blocked, you're fine. For next time feel free to bump it up to 1 year if they've already served a 6 monther. You might want to pipe in a comment and add a signature, i.e. {{tlx|schoolblock|Blocked for 7 months}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::<s>Agree with a one year block in this case given the track record of abuse. ''']''' '']'' 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</s>
:::I've updated the tag. Think I'll leave the block as it is -- 7 months is long enough that it's unlikely to be the same individual(s) using the ip next time, and it doesn't really seem worth unblocking and reblocking. to add a few more months. ] (]) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Right, that's what I meant - no need to tweak this block, but for the next one, you can consider a year-long. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::. ;) ''']''' '']'' 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::lulz sorry about that, being all unclear and all =) –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Labor Day has passed and most US schools are back in session, so I expect that there will be more schoolblocks before the week is out. I’ve made two myself today. —]] 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== changes to the templates for Birth/Date age ==

Recently and editor named ] deleted <nowiki>]</nowiki> for ] and ] and now dates of birth and death appear unlinked - for example ''March 27, 1482 (aged 25)'' instead of ''], ] (aged 25)''. He did so citing ] and although in good faith I believe these edits to be in error. WP:Dates cites among other things that linking dates should be avoided unless there is a reason and I believe that this template qualifies. I would have reverted them myself but the templates are protected and although I requested to be an admin in the past, my request was DENIED and I do not have access. I recommend someone fix these date templates. --] (]) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:On a similar note, on ] I have requested that the default setting for this template use the international date format rather than American date format. I can edit it as an admin, but don't know how to code it. Can someone help? Cheers, ] ]] 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) - there would be a HUGE problem of going back and fixing items already entered under these templates if this switch were made since they have been around for sometime and 1000's of entries have already been made. If you wish to have the date come before the month all you have to do is add |df=y after the month. ] | ] 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::It already is a HUGE problem that thousands of non-American articles using the birth date template now appear as using the American dating format, as a lot of people didn't bother using df=yes when the dates were linked as it autoformatted. There should not be a presumption towards using a minority dating system. ] ]] 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Check the MOS. There has been a change in wording on linking of dates. One of the articles on my watchlist had almost 300 bytes of linked dates stripped out by a well-known and conscientious editor, and I was ready to squawk until I checked the link he provided in the edit summary. ''']''' <small>]</small> 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Dates are no longer being linked, per ]. - ] ] 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Though I can't remember if linking birth and death dates is an exception to this? Probably not, but if anything was an exception, this would be one of them. We do have categories for birth and death years, so linking to the years seems wrong. Possibly the birth/death year produced by the template could be linked to the birth/death year categories, so people reading the infobox can click through to the category of, say, ], instead of scrolling to the bottom to do that. On the other hand, the year articles do tend to contain sections with births and deaths (eg. ]), so linking from the pages of people who were born and died that year would be a legitimate way to bring traffic to the year pages. Delinking ''all'' the year links wasn't the intention, I don't think. ] (]) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I see where the changes where made to the date text however I do not see any evidence that it was done based on a majority decision. Rather it looks as though 1 individual felt it wasn't right and made the change. I believe that a change of this magnitude should be presented to the mob and then a decision reached as to whether it should go forward.--] (]) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Additionally, there are several bots that do date changes as well as edits built into AWB. If the intent is that we will no longer link dates then we will need to remove all this logic and undo tens of thousands of linked dates.--] (]) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::<s>Speaking of the death date template, can someone please change the grammatically improper "aged" to "age"? Putting "(age 79)" after a death date is short-hand for "at the age of 79", while "(aged 79)" would be short for something like "having aged 79 years".</s> <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Withdrawn, I appear to be wrong about this, and "aged" is the correct usage. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Copyright question ==

A question has come up related to copyright of an article that, on closer examination, could lead to the deletion of dozens of other articles. I had already asked for feedback at ], but given its broad-reaching implications, would like to publicize that question ''here'' in the hopes of inviting knowledgeable participation ''there''. Feedback appreciated. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Please help on ] ==

Please, please, I'm begging - will someone help with the BLP-violators, POV-pushers, and edit-warriors on ]? I can't even keep up with BLP violators, much less research diffs in hundreds of revisions per hour to report edit-warriors. Please help! ] <sup>]</sup> 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Or alternatively, could we have full protection for a while to calm things down? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::I second this. Palin's and associated articles are under full onslaught by SPA's and POV pushers. Kelly and a couple of others can't watch the articles every second, 24-hours a day. Please provide full protection for a few days. ] (]) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:(e/c)Admin only, unfortunately, until next Monday (sept 8). We all need a break, per Kelly's rationale. ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks so much! I think the article is relatively complete with the actual information we have so far, any major updates can be handled through edit requests. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::And thanks for your edit summary. I love me too! ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:(a few e/c) I've been watching the page ever since I first saw it at ], and I agree, there have been ''many'' POV pushers and ] violators to the article, and fully support the protection. There I noticed I managed to make the last to the article before Keeper ] the article. :-) Just had to fix some reference placements... -- ] (''''']''''') 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:I also support full protection. There are a lot of things that need discussing and refining before they can be included, and there's no reason to let the article continually fall to The Wrong Version in the meantime. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::Support, and also support keeping an eye on related articles, such as ]... if those get hit too, we may want to protect them as well. ] (]) 23:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm sure administrators will ] enough to do so if disruptive editing goes too far. I may as well start keeping an eye on such related articles too. Things should probably calm down when new-year comes along, assuming that the politics drama that hit Misplaced Pages would be over by then. -- ] (''''']''''') 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::"if disruptive editing goes too far"?!? That bridge was crossed a long time ago. As has been said elsewhere, the article is the first Google result for the name of the subject and we have clear responsibilities here. But, sadly, some seem to feel keeping the encyclopedia free for all to edit is more important than stopping casual libel slip through to a worldwide audience every few minutes. It's in situations like these where it is easy to realise how a project that initially offered so much promise can also be used for all the wrong reasons. Lock it - and lock every BLP while you're at it ] (]) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with the protection but could you make the huge banner a bit smaller? I find it a bit distracting on such a high profile high visibilty article. ] (]) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

. Just for The Wrong Version procedural grounds it should be reverted by GlassCobra, I left him a note. Kelly, good luck. I'm not touching this article for at least a week, its gotten far too annoying. I left him a . He probably just missed the protection. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think you should ] in this case and not ask for this to be reverted. It takes a bit of time to prepare an edit and they happened virtually at the same time AND it also had consensus that it's a borderline BLP vio/should not be in the article. ] (]) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::That absolutely is good faith, I told him it was probably a mistake and asked him to revert. The protection policy doesn't allow people to make massive edits/reversions of contested content dispute material. What as bad faith about what I wrote? Admins simply can't do that except for really trivial stuff like bjweeks tweaking a citation format or removing "obvious" BLP violations. I'm just looking out for GlassCobra so no one tries to screw or politicize him for this. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Asking him to revert. ] (]) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Please don't split up the conversation any further, we can discuss it here. It's not bad faith to ask him to revert to the wrong version. That's how our protection policy simply works. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Removing the lengthy diatribe about the AIP was good, as it's prejudicial and basically trying to prove a point of some kind. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::(ec)Actually, don't think that edit should be reverted, the content is a borderline BLP vio. That secessionist-party meme has been heavily discussed on the article talk page and there really is no consensus for its inclusion (if anything, consensus is against). Should be discussed at the article talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Hey, if theres consensus to keep it out, cool beans. I just didn't want to see the crazies running around take it out on GC, he seemed to just honestly leap in there. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::OK then we all agree that it was an honest edit that didn't circumvent policy that was written to stop ''abuse'' of protected pages and there is no reason to ask for it to be reverted. ] (]) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And support full protection, but till September 8th is a bit too long. 48 hours, maybe 72 max. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call on protecting. POV-pushers trying to cram every scandal they can come up with into the article. A feeding frenzy like I've never seen here. There's plenty of juicy stuff still in the article, but all or most of it is mainstream info. We do need some rest here. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:In addition to it being a high-importance article on a current event with partisan overtones, I think some of the problem was editing volume. It was the fastest editing environment I've seen here, hard to sort already-discussed proposals from bold edits, and simple mistakes from vandalism. The same edits and discussion topics came again and again - assuming they were mostly good faith it must have been from inexperienced editors or those who could not easily read the entire 350K talk page or edit-a-minute history before proposing the same bad idea that someone else had proposed hours before. I tried to help but most clean-ups of BLP and NPOV violations would only stick a few hours before they were back. I hope the cooling off period works by itself but if not, it might help to figure out a plan of getting from here to there in terms of a stable unprotected editing environment. ] (]) 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, '''support'''. I've never seen such a riot of BLP violations, SPAs, ''un''reliable sources, and general meanspiritedness on every side. A little break is what everyone needs to calm down and reason things out together. ] 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I second the call for a reduction in this page's protection. A cooling off period is fine and necessary, especially for all the editors doing their best to keep the POV pushing out, but new information covering the entire spectrum of her biography (including the future!) is appearing by the minute. I would hope that this could go back to semi-protection within 24 to 48 hours, which is where the Obama, Biden, and McCain articles now stand. ] (]) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I would support, but please let's wait to see if the media frenzy dies down a little first. I really need a break. :) There is no sign of many other BLP-sensitive editors (in sufficient numbers to handle this article) coming out to help with things. I know I'm not doing it all, but I'm doing a lot, and few people are helping. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Of course Rootology and Baseball Bugs are doing fantastic work too, and a couple others. :) ] <sup>]</sup> 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I totally have to agree with the decision to lock it down. She's going to be speaking at the RNC in like an hour. God, I don't even want to imagine the hell that would break loose if we relax the protection. <font color="#3300ff">]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">]</font></sup> 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I have an idea. We can keep the mainspace version protected and create a sandbox version of the mainspace article for continued article development. ] 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that would be a good idea - the BLP violations will just show up somewhere else then. At this point I think we just need to get the editing volume down, get people consensus-ing on the talk page, and identifying the malefactors who have have been causing problems. Right now they're getting away with it because the volume is too high to ID them. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::We could put it in a talk subpage with a {{tl|noindex}} tag to keep it off Google. Standard procedure with protections is to create a sandbox. Quackguru (if memory serves) has experience with these sandboxes. BLP violations might occur, but they won't fight so hard because it's not the "real" article. Users would nominate the posting of specific revised versions for consensus. ] '']'' 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The talk page already has a list of 3 or 4 controversial points, and the discussion needs to be kept there for now, rather than allowing more edit wars to foment. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::May I respectfully remind people that ] covers talk pages as well as article space. Thanks ] (]) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The talk page and archives of that article are lousy with BLP violations now - I don't even know where to start on cleaning them up. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm tempted to suggest "oversight the entire lot," or at the least delete as I genuinely believe this issue is far more serious than some "ideal". ] (]) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I know, but there are going to be talk space BLP violations unless we lock the whole thing down as well and spend the next few days scrubbing. I thought it might be useful to create a sandbox, but Baseball Bugs is probably right. No time for edit wars. Proposed edits will have to be insular, I guess. ] '']'' 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Most of the so-called BLP violations are reasonable questions that have been raised. It's not appropriate to be censoring the talk page unless somebody blatantly makes something up that's slanderous. For example, the ''Enquirer'' story is not appropriate for the article at present, but it has to be talked about, because it's out there. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with Baseball Bugs. I have been through most of the current talk page and it's mostly innocent questions/people who don't understand Misplaced Pages. Comments that are violations of BLP are being reverted on sight already. --]] 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I certainly agree with the protection here. To pick a relevant example, the level of editing activity and problematic edits was a lot higher than that at ] as the latest scandal was breaking. Indeed, so much was coming so fast that even the active editors were having trouble keeping track of what disputes were still disputes and what were settled. And we protected Sen. Edwards article for a week, unprotecting less than 24 hours after a clear and sticking talk page consensus was formed. I make no predictions as to whether we'll be able to form any consensus here - but hopefully with 5 days to work with editors will at least be able to sort out how many different issues they are dealing with.

:I'd also suggest that with the article protected would be a good time to review the histories to see if there are editors that need counsel, warnings, or other attention. ] 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problems here are exactly the kind of thing broad and sweeping sanctions are designed to handle. I propose that an uninvoled admin, at his or her discretion, may take any actions he/she feels neccesary to remove disruptive users/POV pushers/SSPs/vandals/etc from any page related to the 2008 election, until it's over. Let's face it, this kind of crap is not going to go away, and in fact, it's going to get worse. ] (]) 03:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this until after the protection was a ''fait accompli''. I'll record for the record my view that protecting this article at this time was a huge mistake. The serious problem here is the volume, as noted by Wikidemon. Perhaps we need to split the talk page into separate subpages to deal with the barrage of topics. I'm not sure how to deal with it but I don't see how protection will help, except by discouraging some people from contributing to the article at all. They'll go do other stuff and come back when the protection ends. We'll be right back where we were except for having spent a few days with this highly visible article protected at a crucial time (global black eye for Misplaced Pages). ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 07:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I suggested a sandbox for article development. Improvements can continue to be made while the article is protected with a sandbox version. ] 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*I think that full-protection for a week is too long for an article of this nature. I would of fully-protected it for 24 to 48 hours, I think a week is excessive, especially for those good-faith users (including myself), who are now unable to edit the contents of the page. ] (]) 09:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:* Use {{tl|editprotected}}, anything that has obvious consensus will be in in no time. The sheer volume of egregious policy violations on this article makes full protection amply justified. Blame the idiots, not the admins. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection downgraded ===
Article appears to have been downgraded to semi-protection by {{user|Jossi}}. ] (]) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

: I missed that above discussion, but after reading it, I still see no need for full protection, in particular on a current event high-traffic article. Semi should do. ] <small>]</small> 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Well I do trust the people that watch this page when they say they are overwhelmed and are unable to maintain the quality of the article. I would have preferred if you had erred on the side of caution and undone your change, but I won't join the wheel war. I have restored the move protection though. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::: Erring on the side of caution is actually keeping the article uprotected. There are ongoing developments on the subject of the article, and material will continue to be added as it emerges. Granted, it would be a battle to keep the hordes at bay, but we cannot simply close the gates. Editing should continue despite the challenges. If a few admins are getting overwhelmed, they should take a wikibreak. Others will step in. ] <small>]</small> 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: Though we really shouldn't be writing articles as news reports adding items as they are reported; instead, the most significant points should be brought in after time has been allowed to digest if news reports are truly significant and finding the best sources to reference those (in light of this being a BLP). If it was only IPs with the occasional SPA, semi would seem fine, but as I see it, there's a lot of signed-in users attacking the article. I've seen articles granted full protection for less on RFPP. --] 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: Further, many of the SPAs that registered when the story first broke will no longer be barred by semi-protection. Users are autoconfirmed after 4 days, right? I don't have much experience in this area, but it seems to me that a flood of angry trolls is about to bust loose. Full protection seems warranted for the time being. ] 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Simple, any accounts persiting with disruptive edits, we ]. Let other productive editors continue editing rather than shutting down the article. This is the most trafficked article in WP right now, and we need to show the project and the community can afford people the liberty of editing. This is WP and a wiki, after all. ] <small>]</small> 14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I take your point, and while I don't disagree completely, I find the use of ] here to be quite unseemely. Maybe occasional blocks will be sufficient, but let's decide before we act. ] 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: See the comments above. The editing volume is too high to deal with BLP-violators, edi-warriors, and POV-pushers, and there aren't any admins helping with that article! ] <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection removal was against consensus and needs restoring ===
Consensus should be honored and the protection restored; lone admins have no authority > consensus. If Jossi can't restore protection, can someone else? It would not be a wheel war situation as there is full support from the majority of the regular users there. I left Jossi an extra note. Since Jossi's move was against clear consensus I don't believe we'd need to wait for his OK, especially as Palin is a BLP. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Some edit warring has already resumed from this unprotection. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is insane to downgrade this article to semi-protection. There is no way editors can keep up with volume of POV and WP:BLP violating edits.--] (]) 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-establish protection per consensus above. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:There has been constant POV-pushing by muckrakers, and the issues remain unresolved. Un-protecting it was inappropriate. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A current event page as trafficked as it is should not be protected. This is one of the times in which I will ] and unprotect again. ] <small>]</small> 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Shameful drama-inducing escalation. There's an extraordinarily clear consensus about this above. It's not "IAR", it's called "wheel-warring against consensus". --] (]) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with barneca. It should be an ] case to protect this page against what might seem like common sense (protecting a high traffic article), vs the protection of the subject of the article. Based on this discussion, there appears to be a quick consensus to protect, we do not have time to have a week long discussion in this case to discuss ad-nauseum. I strongly agree with protection and strongly disagree with jossi's actions. ]] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It's not just protection vs. unprotection; while I disagree with unprotecting, I can understand the theory. It's the blatant disregard for consensus, and playing chicken with the tools. At least 17 people voiced an opinion above, and 13-14 were in favor of full protection for 48 hours at least, with many supporting the full week. Dismissing this as "a short discussion" isn't just hyperbole, it's just 100% wrong. If I were someone else, I'd be tempted to nominate ] at MFD, to make my ], but instead I'll just point out this is ''textbook'' example of ], and were I Jimbo or the ArbCom, and Jossi doesn't revert himself, I'd desysop him; that's how seriously I take it. If we're blowing off consensus and turning this into the Wild West, then we're screwed. Please revert yourself, Jossi, until there's a consensus favoring your point of view. --] (]) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Protection restored ===
Restored protection. I am now off my wikibreak, and this is my first action - nice. I'll take it up with any admin who thinks I'm wrong, but both consensus and rationale are correct here. I'll go talk to jossi ] (]) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Erm. Welcome back? :) ''']'''] 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Almost all edits since full protection was lifted have been constructive. Way to go. ] (]) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi has removed the protection. The rationale for removal is reasonable, and although I am uncomfortable with this due to the consensus above, I won't take any further action with this. ] (]) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Please stop the insanity and restore the protection. A single admin should not be ignoring the consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:The ] article is not unprotected - it is still semiprotected. That seems reasonable to me. That's the protection level of ], for example. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Carl, have you seen what has been going on with that article while it was semiprotected? Have you been helping to deal with it? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::To kelly: I agree with your point of view, but I'm not going to wheel-war over it. ] (]) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I have stepped in to try and help. I am not very familiar with the topic and am fairly apathetic when it comes to politics. I do however recognize a reliable source from a non reliable one and POV pushing. I will try and keep an eye on it. I however feel it should be re-protected and that jossi should undo his wheel warring actions. ]] <sup>]</sup> 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Re Kelly: I think there are more than enough people who know about the article to keep it well watched. We do need to be more proactive in using the blocking provision of WP:BLP. My philosophy is: one stern warning, then a short block (12-24 hours) with autoblock enabled. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Protection has been re-re-restored''', and I'm going to start handing out blocks to anyone who continues to war over this. You all know better. Establish a consensus, then take an action. The time for boldness is past. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Establish a consensus, sure. But the status qu of Misplaced Pages articles is that they are free to be edited, and not the other way around. ] <small>]</small> 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:The original protection came from some substantive discussion, now there's been a second and third. We all know better than to protection war over this; I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it should be full or semi, and don't plan to, but we shouldn't be playing tug-of-war. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===]===
Under the ] for ], I have placed ] under full edit protection for a period of two weeks and noted it at the ] and ] page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:A very bad idea. There's nothing here that can't be handled by blocking. This is the sort of article that we expect to have an editing frenzy for a while. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::WP:BLPBAN is not an excuse for wheel warring. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Then establish a strong consensus to end full protection. That's needed ''anyways'', nevermind the special enforcement garbage. There has been a solid consensus to full protect, with only a couple dissenting voices, which frankly have been pretty meritless. Continued warring over it isn't going to be tolerated, regardless. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Note the wording of the ruling that requires discussion at WP:AE; a ] there has commenced. ] (]) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first i'd like to thank you for the protection as the article's edits were unbearably and icreasingly chaotic. Unfortunately it seems that as a consequence we now have BLP violations like poor citations, controversial materials and lots of bad editing on this very prominent BLP. I don't know the solution, I just wanted to point out the new problem that now we're stuck with a potentially libalous BLP. Thanks. --] (]) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

===Unprotection Wheel Warring on Sarah Palin and RFAR===
Any further admins that unprotect again are into total wheel war country against consensus and will be brought to RFAR. If you enjoy being an admin, respect the community consensus, please. This is ''shameful'' for a BLP. I'm as liberal of an American as they come, probably more than most of you, and '''I'M''' advocating protection on ]. BLP and consensus > your wishes. And I just removed a vote that Jossi put up about BLP protection. We vote on a lot of stuff, but not that. Sorry.

Log so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=Sarah_Palin <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: Please refrain from refactoring this page. ] <small>]</small> 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: And that is not a !vote, but a way to assess what kind of consensus, if any emerges. ] <small>]</small> 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Please refrain from misuse of admin tools over BLPs, and obey consensus like all of us are required to. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I'll have to agree. Wheel warring over protection is not the way to go about doing it, especially when you cite "IAR" and "consensus" for semi-protection, when I can't find consensus for that -- among others who agree. In addition, who "enjoys" being an admin? :) <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Until the first flush of frenzy settles down, there won't be any happy way to handle this. I support semi-protection but do understand why some editors think full protection is more in keeping with ] for now. ] (]) 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The wheels on the war go round and round. MZMcbride just semi-ed it again. :P ] (]) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::At least two admins have ] they'd block any more admins who protection warred this page. What, if anything, should be done regarding this? ] (]) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've blocked him for three hours, and left a note on his talk page. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Considering MZM was urged not to take this action by his peers on irc before he did it and was aware of the special circumstances and the discussion at AE, I would say this block was appropriate. ] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I was about to assume good faith. Then I read the arbcom started on him. *sigh* Why can't we all get along? ] (]) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::] for reference. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Frankly, I posted warnings just about fuckin' everywhere to stop warring over the protection and have a god-damn discussion and it was fuckin' working and people were sitting down to discuss it like good colleages over tea and crumpets like we are all friends or coworkers or shit and rational fuckin' human beings and someone who already knows fuckin' better comes along and does some shit disturbing? Inexcusable. MZM knows better. Every admins knows better.
::::Sorry about my sailor talk but this all is a wee bit stressful. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Wheel warring is NEVER appropriate. Wheel warring with as many "don't do it" red signs as are out there is unbelievable. ] (]) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Without being so colorful myself, I will say that the discussion was pretty much settled at AE before this wheel warring happened, there was a developing agreement that the protection was good and that we should reconsider on Saturday. This latest action by MZM has only served to reduce productivity in this area. ] 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Since I didn't think anyone would actually be so stupid as to wheel-war over the (appropriate) full protection, I didn't comment a few hours ago, when I last logged on. Since I was obviously wrong, and the Arbitration thread contains several claims that there is no consensus for full protection, please add me to the list of admins who '''support full protection'''. ''']''' <small>]</small> 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

* Oh bloody hell, what a mess. I really don't think that fighting out ideological differences with admin tools on a ] that has been subject to an absolute deluge of grossly defamatory edits will play terribly well with ArbCom. I would have thought that the est way to preserve Misplaced Pages's principles here would be to make absolutely sure that uncontentious edits are speedily agreed and implemented via {{tl|editprotected}} - I am minded of the way the railway companies handled the first Glastonbury Festival in about 1970; they were taken completely off guard by traffic to Glasto, but for the returns they pulled in every loco and carriage they could find, removed the station windows to make extra ticket counters, brought in everybody who was off duty, sent out a small army of clerks with every portable ticket machine they could pull in from around the network, and processed the massive crowds in something approaching order. To stretch that particular analogy somewhat, lifting protection is a more like removing all the barriers and gates and handing out first-aid kits to the station staff. Protection keeps the worst absurdities off the article and out of the headlines, and takes the patently acrimonious debates to the talk page which is slightly less high profile. That page can then be clerked to within an inch of its life and good suggestions moved into the article in an orderly manner well before the deadline. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Wow... after seeing the first few edit comments I assumed that there was a brief wheel war which was quickly ended, but this is train-wreck-tastic. Whatever the correct level of protection for the article is, the wheel-warring has to stop. If we can't agree on what that level is, that's all the more reason to discuss the matter here, rather than for individuals to unilaterally impose their own view. IAR is a wonderful thing, but we have to take extra care with it when we can't agree on which course of action constitutes "improving Misplaced Pages".<small>sorry if this sound sanctimonious; trying to help</small> <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*Any wheel war is a trainwreck. Protection was implemented after days of dealing with an unprecedented volume of edits from POV vandals in a blp and nowhere near enough editorial help dedicated to keeping it compliant 24/7 as the frenzy continued to rage. Removing the protection without a realistic plan in place how to manage the page wasn't a helpful solution, and now editor resources are further compromised arguing about the justification for protection or its removal instead of producing workable solutions.] (]) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
* In fairness, I've never seen a topic with so many edits/hour over so many days, it's a cultural fluke beyond the bounds of what Misplaced Pages has been built up to smoothly handle (that's ok, this is going to happen now and then and editors do learn from it). Cheers to Kelly for all she's done throughout the trainwreck. ] (]) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
**Ditto - Kelly deserves special praise for her strenuous efforts on behalf of that article. ]] ] 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' full protection for 24 or 48 hours. The BLP issues have gotten too far out of hand for now. If the article on 44 years or Sarah Palin's life is missing one or two days worth of material that is a small price to pay - if it is important the information will be available in any newspaper anyway. And invoking ] to ignore consensus and instead wheel war by unprotected a page in desparate need of protection is ludicrous. ] (]) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

===modest proposal for ]===
I think that the structure of the article, as a whole, is pretty stable right now. Therefore, my proposal is to leave the main article protected, but to break out most sections as semiprotected transcluded subpages (with their own faked-up "edit/view source" and "talk" buttons). This would untangle the edit history and talk pages of the separate sections. The scurrilous rumors would tend to be confined to certain sections, and defending, or, if necessary, protecting those sections would be much easier. If they showed up in inappropriate sections, they could be easily recognized and treated as vandalism. I think that this would help resolve this issue, and free up the article from a lockdown which I don't think is good for its quality.

I recognize that this proposal is unconventional, involves some degree of work, may have unanticipated consequences for some bots/spiders/whatever, and might be seen to set a precedent. However, in my opinion, it would be worth it, as it would be helpful for the article itself, which is my main concern here. ] (]) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Images in ] article ==

I see that all the images in ] have suddenly gone red-linked. Could somebody experienced with images please take a look at what is happening? Thanks, ] (]) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Images look fine to me. Must have been a hiccup. - ] ] 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::That is really strange. Must be a weird problem with my browser. When I use internet explorer, I still get red links for images and even a red message "Error: image is invalid or non-existent" displayed at the top of the page. But when I view the page using safari, the images are there and everything looks fine. Must be some strange bug in my internet explorer.... Sorry for the false alarm. ] (]) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::They were redlinked, and now they're OK. Just one of those little techie mysteries. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Nsk, in IE, hit Ctrl-F5 to purge your cache. I suspect the images will magically reappear. --] (]) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::There seems to have been a bit of a hiccup with images this morning. Ctrl-F5 should sort it all out. ] (]) 10:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
* This is an intermittent issue with Commons images at the moment, I think - some svgs from templates were red yesterday. PUrge the cache, that worked for me. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks! When I got up this morning, everything looked fine and I did not even have to purge the cache. ] (]) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Cascade protection on ] ==

''Cross-posting from ]''

Just so everyone knows, I copy/pasted ] to ] and cascade-protected that page until September 8. ]]] 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Have there been problems with templates on Sarah Palin? ] ] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: Just to save me trawling through megabytres of talk pages, why have you made this fork? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Not a fork, he is using it to protect the templates. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Hmm, yes, I see. The article itself is protected now, isn't it. Perhaps cascaded semiprotection when the full protection ends? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::You cannot enable the cascading option with semi-protection. - ] (]) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Autoblock finder tool ==

Just so you guys know, I've finally got annoyed enough today to write a tool to find autoblocks. You can find it at http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php. Basically you give the tool the user's name and it will list any and all autoblocks that are on the user. The tool has been added to a few templates and mediawiki pages by Rjd0060 and Hersfold.

An example of the tool is for ] who was blocked. That user also triggered an autoblock, so any admin would have to also unblock the autoblock id as well. You can find this id by clicking http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user=HappyRapids.

Again this tool has been added to the standard {{t1|unblock}} template among others so that you can just click and see if there are autoblocks. —— ''']]'''</font> 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks Eagle. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has missed the old tool since it's been down. Much appreciated, <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 03:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::PS. Your username is misspelled on the tool - it says "This tool is written by User:Nixagle"... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Wow, at least it links to the right talk page >.> I'll fix my typo later. —— ''']]'''</font> 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Image caption ==

Could an administrator please change an image caption on the protected page ]? The current right-hand image caption doesn't identify which one is Jeff, which is kind of a nice thing to have given the subject. Copy/pasting the caption on ] (identical photo) would be ideal. ] (]) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} --]] 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Unabated unWiki behavior continues ==

Misplaced Pages Administrators are requested to input views on the RFC on user Goingoveredge . This user is still continuing choking other editors by deleting their views from Discussion Board of article ] so that greater wikipedia does not read other editor's views and reads only his/her.--] (]) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Template vandalism on ]? ==

{{resolved|Figured it out and fixed it. ] (]) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Could someone check out that page? I am pretty sure there is vandalism involving the infobox template, but am not myself familiar with their working intimately, certainly not of that particular one. Thanks. ] (]) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know which template, but it's the Zodiac vandal. ] (]) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, fixed. ] (]) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I figured it out and warned the IP. Don't know about this Zodiac thing, so maybe I shouldn't have. Oh well. ] (]) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Need move-protect applying to 50+ articles ==

I would normally request articles to be move-protected at ], however over 50-articles here need to be protected as Grawp appears to have struck at over 50 articles. Therefore, can someone '''move-protect all the following articles (and related talkpages) for an indefinite amount of time.''' I don't think any are likely to be moved in the future for legitimate purposes. Here goes:

{{hat|list of articles|(pagemoved by "Grawp")}}
*{{la|Mickey Mouse}}
*{{la|Donald Duck}}
*{{la|Nazi Germany}}
*{{la|Protist}}
*{{la|Fungi}}
*{{la|Fungus}}
*{{la|Amoeba}}
*{{la|Archaebacteria}}
*{{la|Talk:Archaea}}
*{{la|Abiogenesis}}
*{{la|Protocell}}
*{{la|Eubacteria}}
*{{la|Bacterium}}
*{{la|Worm}}
*{{la|Scorpion}}
*{{la|Annelida}}
*{{la|Annelid}}
*{{la|Lobster}}
*{{la|Shrimp}}
*{{la|Crab}}
*{{la|Parthia}}
*{{la|Iranian peoples}}
*{{la|Vinegar}}
*{{la|Echinodermata}}
*{{la|Crustacean}}
*{{la|Phylum}}
*{{la|Echinoderm}}
*{{la|Mollusca}}
*{{la|Mollusk}}
*{{la|Arthropoda}}
*{{la|Arthropod}}
*{{la|Primate}}
*{{la|Arachnid}}
*{{la|Yo-yo}}
*{{la|Punishment}}
*{{la|Bean bag}}
*{{la|Brontosaurus}}
*{{la|Apatosaurus}}
*{{la|Triceratops}}
*{{la|David}}
*{{la|Greek mythology}}
*{{la|Gasoline}}
{{hab}} {{hab}}


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
I apologise for making such a request here, but as a lot of articles need move-protecting, I didn't want to clog up RFPP by making a request for 50+ articles. Thanks, ] (]) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:Thank you for your efforts, but I think some IP blocks are better remedies here. Also, when I look at lists like ] and ], I can't help to think that we should raise the number of edits required to move. Cheers, ] 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Grawp hops from IP to IP on a daily basis, causing mass-destruction to articles by moving them. He's been doing this for most of the year. The only suggestion I can think of is to make the "Move" tool available to admins and/or rollbackers. ] (]) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to say something similar: perhaps "Move" needs to be granted only to trusted users. Whether it's bundled with rollback is a different question. As a not-developer, I don't know the costs of implementing such rights-control features. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::If it is possible to set a very high edit threshold in order to be able to move articles, why not do that? The time it takes to accumulate that number of edits would be a disincentive to continuing this kind of vandalism, but the number would have to be high enough to prevent a would-be vandal from doing a lot of extremely minor edits just to reach the goal. Why not 500 edits, or a thousand? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I would strongly agree to a 1,000 edits. ] (]) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly way to go about this unless the same page is being targeted repeatedly, and even then the "indefinite" setting is a bad idea. Once the people doing this realize that indefinite move-protection is the knee-jerk response to a single instance of page-move vandalism they will probably ], causing pages containing a spelling/capitalization error, or needing to be disambiguated, etc. to be locked onto the wrong title. — ] 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've move protected a set of core biochemistry articles that are at their correct title, such as ], ], ] or ]. There is essentially zero chance of these ever needing moved, indeed I can't even think of any reasonable alternatives for these titles. ] (]) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Deoxyribonucleioc acid? Enzymatic proteins? Conversion of sunlight to energy? Biological energy flow? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sunlight is energy, not all enzymes are proteins and metabolism is a larger subject than energy flow - it is the sum total of chemical reactions occurring in an organism (that title would a mouthful indeed!). The only possible move contender would be DNA, and the abbreviation has been chosen as the best title on the talkpage several times over the past few years, so that consensus seems very stable. Honestly, the chances of any of these articles needing moved is near zero. ] (]) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously something needs to be be done, look at the logs of ClueBot: , for a ''small'' sample. What can we done ? We have move-protection for articles with no need to be moved. Think of what is best for Misplaced Pages, and the subject of the articles, example . Our existing tools are not able to deal efficiently enough with this. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:RBI seems to be working just fine. ClueBot is catching it, what's the issue? We could give admin rights to ClueBot so it could delete the redirects and block the vandals, or we could get a consensus on installing the ] extension. Both of those would be far better than mass move-protection (since the vandal will just move on to other titles) or creating ridiculously high standards for allowing pagemoves. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Has the abuse filter still not been installed? ] (]) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Discussion kind of died around the end of July. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:We could try restricting moves of pages with more than 1000 revisions (or some other arbitrary number) to admins. Since we already have a limit for deleting pages it can't be too hard to implement, the high profile pages will tend to be those with lots of revisions and such pages should have some sort of discussion before a move anyway. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I doubt that's going to stop Grawp- he'll just find articles that have less than that, and move those instead. We have to limit moves entirely if we want to stop him. Or, we simply remove all rules against him. He's willing to play dirty, so maybe we have to fight back harder. Aggressively DMCA his host for anything we have a legitimate claim on on a certain other wiki he hangs out on. Or even start complaining to the host- they're a well known hosting firm, and I doubt they'd want to be associated with the scum we're talking about here. Publically speak out about the other wiki on any site you can. Checkuser and publically release the IP addresses of all his socks- there's got to be non-Tor IP's behind him or his imitators, and why are we providing any privacy to one of the worst vandals ever? No more abuse emails- have volunteers call the ISPs personally to report abuse. To hell with the privacy policy, and to hell with it all- revert, block, ignore is what he's counting on. Once we're done cleaning up the mess he makes, he makes another one, then gloats about it.<font face="Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small></font> 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== ACC Backlogged ==

{{resolved|No longer backlogged —— ] • ] 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Any available admins want to tackle the backlogged requests over at <span class="plainlinks"></span>? Would be appreciated, —— ] • ] 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:For some reason, it's not letting me (as an administrator) create the accounts, I get the "too similar" notice. ] 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::There is a little checkbox at the bottom of the creation screen that says "Ignore spoofing checks" or something, you need to select that to create the name. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::...making sure of course that the accounts the desired name is too similar too are inactive... –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with the new features apparently. ] 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Long-standing attack articles ==

*{{la|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator)}}
*{{la|Criticism of George W. Bush}}
*{{la|Criticism of Hugo Chávez}}
*{{la|Criticism of Noam Chomsky}}
*{{la|Criticism of Sylvia Browne}}
*{{la|Criticism of Tony Blair}}
*{{la|Criticism of Traian Băsescu}}
*{{la|Criticism of Vladimir Putin}}

Just pretend I'm stupid and explain to me really slowly why the articles listed above don't fall under criterion ] for speedy deletion. At first I thought, "Surely ''criticism'' is being used in the sense of ''analysis and commentary''". But no, these really are just lists of negative stuff that people have said about these people. Needless to say, there are no matching ''Praise for ...'' or ''Agreement with ...'' articles.

The only thing stopping me deleting these is that I have enough sense to know what a storm this would create but, after thinking about it for the past couple of weeks, this increasingly seems a cowardly excuse. ] (]) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:That's not a "cowardly excuse", it's a recognition of the nature of the project. If you did something that you '''''know''''' is going to be disruptive, without taking steps to minimize the disruption by obtaining a consensus for the action, that's tantamount to being disruptive yourself. I think you did the right thing by holding off and posting your request here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*(ec)Because criticism of these figures in mainstream sources is widespread and of encyclopedic concern. Also, because treating that criticism appropriately requires (sometimes) that we split out a section from the main article. An "attack page" is a page that serves only to defame the subject. In this case, these pages serve to give a tertiary look at criticism which already exists. They do have the added unpleasant outcome of being harder to maintain NPOV than the main articles (partly because they don't see the same amount of traffic and partly because their "baseline" POV is a little slanted). But they should certainly not be speedied. ] (]) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I would be fine with, for example, ] or somesuch. The trouble is that most of the above receive a good deal of equally verifiable praise in equally reliable sources yet this is barely represented - making our coverage of these people unbalanced. ] (]) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The reason they are not called ''Commentary'' rather than criticism is that the NPOV tendency would be to "balance" the negative criticism with positive adulation... which is frequently even less analytically based than the negative stuff (and far less common, which ironically leads to a bias upon sources if they are presented "equally"). While positive criticism can be appropriately placed within an article with ''criticism'' in the title, the nature of the beast dictates that most content will be negative. ] (]) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::We also have {{la|Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt}}, {{la|Criticism of Ellen White}}, {{la|Criticism of Jesus}} and {{la|Criticism of Muhammad}}. Criticism in a sense includes positive criticism, so it's possible to include them as well. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I realize we also have those articles but I singled out the ones for living people, for obvious reasons. Also, you are correct that "Criticism" can include positive criticism - but in the articles in question it patently does not. For example, this is the lede for ]:
::::::''Criticism of '''Tony Blair''' includes accusations of dishonesty, authoritarianism, and subservience in his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush. Tony Blair has faced particularly severe condemnation for British involvement in the Iraq War, earning him the disparaging moniker of "Bush's Poodle."''
:::::] (]) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Preface the above with ''"Negative"'', and tag ''"Positive criticism includes..."'' with a couple of examples from the main body would result in a NPOV and comprehensive lede (why do we spell it like that?) Ho, you should have seen the barrage of negative criticism that socialist Prime Ministers used to get - often from fractions within their own party! ] (]) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::{Sidebar) The spelling "lede" for the leading sentence, paragraph or section is a journalistic invention designed to differentiate it from "lead", as in the hot lead used to make type. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever" Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. ] (]) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Public figures can sue for defamation, and most of these are forks to deal with bloated criticism sections into which every single tine adverse comment is obsessively added by those who have an agenda against the subjects. ] does not get shelved for public figures. Having them renamed to "discussion" or some such title, which is less readily misunderstood by those who fail to see the difference between critique and censorious criticism, would be a good idea I feel. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Right, BLP does not get shelved, which is why I said the BLP has a policy for public figures. We should apply it, and adapt it as needed. I personally don't see the difference between calling the article "criticism of..." and "discussion of...". The content would be critical in nature, and allowed if it is cited, verifiable and from a reliable source, and not allowed otherwise. If it is criticism, let's call it that. By allowing people who are extremely critical to have a place to put it (but still following ]), it gives a safety valve that should keep some of that out of the primary article. ] (]) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Main page ==

The article on the main page has been vandalized! That's not why I'm here tho. :P There is currently a ] going on with proposals to update the main page. Although this isn't admin-related, wide community attention is needed on the contest. So please check out the page, look over the proposals and leave comments for the semi-finalists. Thanks, ]] 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
:erm...linky? Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I liked it to "contest", but here's the full link: ]. ]] 16:09, 4 September 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)
Possibly one of the worst AFD nominations I've ever seen. See ]. ] (]) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Abot}}
:Speedy closed. Not an article so shouldn't be at AfD. Also, I think the prohibition on memorials is about encyclopedic content not projectspace/userspace. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::One outstanding question: Should the AfD notices on the pages be simply deleted? I'm thinking that there's no point filling out the {{tl|oldafdfull}} notice. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The {{tl|oldafdfull}} is irrelevant in cases where the discussion was closed on procedural grounds (as the above was) since it is primarily a tool for judging "former" consensus in future deletion discussions. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::While I agree with keeping it, I think the rationale is slightly off. I fear the rationale utilized in WJB's comment above and in the AFD imply that people can come here and create memorials in their Talkpages. I do not believe this should be allowed and is the implication for not a memorial. That being said, there is a difference between coming to wikipedia with the intention of starting a memorial and memorializing an active contributor to the project. The former shouldn't be allowed, the later I have no problem with. The later kind of tells people why a colleague they may have worked with is no longer active.---''']''' '']'' 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure, but you might be talking about my rationale, in which case, I may simply have worded it sloppily- I think a memorial for an active Wikipedian is useful, because his absence is noticed and affects the project. I ''don't'' necessarily think that my userspace would be a good place for me to create a memorial for my late grandfather. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)I agree with 100% wit this. I just wanted to make sure that we don't set a presidence that memorials are ok, if they are in people's userspace. I think by countering Jeff's memorial with it's not applicable to ] because it's in the userspace, open's that door for others to say, "But my memorial is in my userspace."---''']''' '']'' 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::"Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The guideline is clearly focused on articles. We may still want to delete memorial pages outside of articles, but they should nominated at ] and there needs to be some argument beyond ]. As ever, we are more relaxed about the userspace of good contributors. If a good contributor wants to use a subpage of their userspace to remember a deceased friend or relative, I suspect few will have a problem with it. If someone's sole purpose here is to create such a page, rather than to be involved in creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, I suspect opinion would be quite different. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::When you start making memorials in your userspace, I think you are starting to get into the realm of ]---''']''' '']'' 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Indeed. And you are entitled to that opinion and would no doubt voice it were such a page to be nominated at ], which is where the matter will ultimately be settled. A speedy closed AfD of a non-article doesn't establish any precedent at all... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. In the end, this was a bad AFD and was correctly closed.---''']''' '']'' 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This is an editor (KoshVorlon) who routinely attempts to enforce his/her complete and utter misunderstanding of policy. KV has also nominated numerous articles (], ], ], ], ], and ]) for deletion, simply because they are lists, claiming ] prohibits lists. I've never been a fan of the mentor/adopt a user program, but this editor could be the test case. - ] ] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== 96.230.143.43 ==
(outdent) This is looking very ]. Several months ago, the same user tried nominating ] at AfD . <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is geared up for football season</font></b> 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: NO, there's no attempt at WP:POINT. It's a memorial, and as I stated in the AFD, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL it's not permitted to have memorials in Misplaced Pages pages. BTW - if anything, the AN should be on the admin who closed the damn thing after 5 minutes and called it proper. However, like I said in the AFD, I expected to get hate thrown my way because of the two AFD's. <br />
::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
BTW - comment on contribution not contributor please! <span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:I'm not going to comment on whether these things should be deleted or not, but from you still seem to think that ] is an article. It's not - it's in the Misplaced Pages: space and therefore needs to be discussed at ]. As such, I fully endorse the procedural close of the '''A'''FD. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:(ec)First, ] is not a memorial; it is a collective list of notable people who have died, and links to their own articles - for which notability has already been established. It is also useful for generating new articles, even stubs, for these people. And the AfD, which was inappropriately so per procedure, was closed by a 'Crat, not an Admin. --]] 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::We can have a proper understanding of the policy, and no need for the assumed dichotomy; WP:NOTMEMORIAL specifically refers both to articles, and has language that refers to the <u>creation</u> of pages. The Jeffpw page is in userspace, and it '''''evolved''''' from an ordinary userpage - none of which is covered by the policy. I would also we had this same discussion around about the time when the page became what it is, and the consensus (you may be surprised to find we have a policy regarding that concept, but I assure you we do) was that it was to be kept. ] (]) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== StoneX Group Inc. ==
Even if KoshVorlon follows proper procedure to nominate this as MfD, it just really stings as very poor taste, and insensitive in the extreme. The idea that Jeff, or for that matter, any Wikipedian including KoshVorlon or myself, could be so easily erased from the community because of policy is misguided. I don't know why Jeff's page, or any talk page expression of sorrow or grief would have to be deleted. This community is obviously made of editors. When one of them dies, it is a natural response for the community to react to the loss. We do not function as a community unless we allow ourselves (without going crazy myspace style) to communicate with each other. --] (]) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{tl|courtesy blanked}} and full protected the AfD discussion. That was an embarrassment. ]] 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


I’m concerned about the page at ]
== Request block review ==


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)
I've just blocked ] for 24 hours for repeated, unrepentant edit warring on ]. I hesitated to do it since I edit the article, but after 11+ reverts and no response on he needed to be stopped. He was warned several times on his talk page, in edit summaries and on the article talk page. Requesting review. ] (]) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Not commenting on your block, but you probably should have simply posted to ] to avoid the potential conflict of interest as you are (admittedly) in the dispute. Its great you are asking it to be reviewed, but honestly when you are in a dispute, its best not to play admin and editor at the same times. —— ''']]'''</font> 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Good block. As clear-cut as it gets. Next time though you could post on AN/I to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I had also posted it on the 3RR noticeboard to avoid COI, but we're having trouble with this user coming back with a variety of ips and one sweet li'l sock. Could one of our tech-savvier friends take a look and see if a brief rangeblock would be helpful? It is getting just a teeny bit irritating. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::If you've got more IP addresses, we can check. I only see the two on 3RR, and that's not enough to justify a rangeblock. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::There's a few more at ]; just added another one a moment ago. But we can just keep up with ] if that is the better strategy. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::If it is a previously-blocked editor just block socks and IPs on sight. There is no need to go to a noticeboard if their edits are clearly recognisable. ] (]) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I think that semi-protection of ] should be considered, due to the high recent volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. The article was rather quiet until the last couple of days, so two weeks of semi might be sufficient. ] (]) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Protection... why didn't I think of that? Yes, that would work just as well. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good points. Wouldn't ordinarily have stepped in myself in that type of situatino, but it was getting ridiculous. As long as no-one objects to the block... ] (]) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Excellent block - firstly, this is a new ip picking up from where a same general range editor left off, and, secondly, this is very sophisticated POV emplacement (the distinction between "Fear" and "Disgust" responses reconciling an anti homosexual viewpoint was quite clever) that could easily be lost in a pre sanction discussion. Other than the pseudo technical language, it was also simple 3RR violation/gaming. ] (]) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== Permissions Removal ==
== Multiple admins editing protected page ==
{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Could someone take a box of clue bats to the admins who have decided to continuing reverting each other after ] was protected? I don't want to see more arbcom cases today. ] 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ftools is back! ==
:Grr. I'll up the count of those I've notified about the first arbcomm case again. ] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:'''OH DEAR LAWD.''' Someone get Kelly to smack some sense into these people. Admins should not be editing the page - only on behalf of consensus reached by editors on the talk page. I am going to be pissed if this shows up on the 40+ papers that have had articles dedicated to the Misplaced Pages page itself. The second that happens I am going to come back here and trick someone into deleting the main page. --]] 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::From ] (cur) (last) 11:58, 4 September 2008 TimVickers (Talk | contribs) (73,362 bytes) (Blank edit - I'm going to block the next Admin that edits this article with no talkpage consensus.) --]] 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you Tim Vickers. ] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm very serious. Acting like that is completely unacceptable. ] (]) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you Tim. --]] 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Additionally, I made this clear on the editnotice, ]. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good idea, though the edit summary of the last admin to revert is fairly ironic: ''Protection Warring is not acceptable'' ] (]) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::<s>Look, ], ] and ] are all full protected. ] should remain full protected at least through November 4 as well.</s> —]] 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::None of those pages is fully protected, and none has been fully protected for a some time. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ach! This is, I guess, the type of hurried editing I do after the wife announces that the bread pudding is ready to eat. My apologies. —]] 01:24, 5 September 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)
== Stormfront ==


:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I found a link to the domain crusader.net which turns out to redirect to ]. I believe that this is not a wholly reliable source... More to the point, there are a few links in debates about the place and we might want to be on the lookout for this. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Good work. ] (]) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== Block appeal for ] ==
== Royce Mathew's Legal Threat ==
{{resolved|Mountains, mole hills, etc. Also ]. —]] 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}}
An IP of the previous user ], none other than . He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against ''me'' for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He ''has'' been blocked, several times, but he ''won't stop.'' I don't want to lose my position at Misplaced Pages as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be ''greatly'' appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. Here is what he has written, and what he will ''probably'' send to Wikimedia Foundation against me: . It ''has'' been deleted, but I'm not sure if he got the link the following commenter gave him ''against'' me. I don't mind a checking of my contributions, but I do ''not'' like it when someone is willing to take something so far as a legal threat and my possible blocking when all I've done is try to enforce the rules with both myself and others so as to make Misplaced Pages a better place! ]]23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm taking this back to BlackPearl14's talkpage. ] (]) 23:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::My message has been carried on to . ]]23:18, 4 September 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:
== ] ==


: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.
Could an administrator please look at the article ]? It's showing a lot of activity lately regarding some police scandal, and there are some very questionable usernames editing the article. ], ], ], ], ]. -- ] (]) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Should I bother to inform these users that I've posted this, or is it not worth it? -- ] (]) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, it's customary to do so. I've removed the section, as it was completely unsourced. ] (]) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've notified the users. -- ] (]) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Hmmm... this hits very close to my hometown. I do recall the incidents being in the newspaper (the latter, about the officer) and the charges that were wiped under the rug, so to speak. I'll try to dig up some sources tonight or tomorrow and at least give some credibility to that. The former, about welfare and all that jazz is completely garbage. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


:While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
Indef'ed the socks: ReformVanceburg, ReformVanceburgNow, Reformcorruptrivercity. The main account appears to be Vanceburg, and if they wish to discuss the matter, they can use a single account. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the swift action. I wasn't sure if I should have posted on ]. It just seemed too ''obvious'' to be sock-puppetry. -- ] (]) 01:08, 5 September 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.
== Newyorkbrad checkuser access ==


:Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator {{user|Newyorkbrad}} has requested and been approved for Checkuser access. This is in order to allow him to more fully review Committee cases, and does not impact on the current Checkuser appointment process.


] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:23, 10 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 22 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 6 6


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

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

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

    User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

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

    Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emoji redirect

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

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

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

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

    Topic ban appeal

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

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

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

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

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

    Andra Febrian report

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

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

    Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

    Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

    Cannot draftify page

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

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

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

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

    Remove PCR flag

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

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

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

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

    "The Testifier" report

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

    Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

    repost from archive:

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

    Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

    References

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

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

    Heritage Foundation

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

    Deleted contributions request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

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

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

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

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

    Hide this racist edit.

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

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

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

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

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

    Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

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

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

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

    96.230.143.43

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

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

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

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

    StoneX Group Inc.

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

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

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

    Permissions Removal

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

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

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

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

    ftools is back!

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

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

    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)

    Category: