Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 03:24, 10 September 2008 view sourceGuettarda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 edits →I'm not getting it← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:15, 9 January 2025 view source Ad Orientem (talk | contribs)Administrators76,352 edits →ftools is back!: ReplyTag: Reply
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
	<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|algo = old(7d)
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			|counter = 368
	|maxarchivesize = 400K
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	|counter = 167
			|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>
			==Open tasks==
	== warning template for Hurricane Gustav ==
			<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 ==
	During Hurricane Katrina, Misplaced Pages had this warning template on the top of the page
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	<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.'''
			{{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.
	</div>
			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 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)
			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 ].}}
	Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--] (]) 03:25, 1 September 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 ==
	:Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ] (]) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	: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)
			I have not come across a situation like ] 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 ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
	I 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>
	::: :o) I think it should ''not'' be up there. :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... ]! :) ] (]) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Um, no. I see it now:
			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.
	<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)
			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.
	(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)
	: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)
			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?
	And another...
			<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
	<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)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- ] 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Because we have ] that should generally be used. ] (]) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (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)
	::You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- ] 04:20, 1 September 2008 (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)
	:::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)
			::::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)
	::::Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{tl|current}} templates. - ] ] 04:36, 1 September 2008 (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)
	:::::Oops. ] (]) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (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)
	<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.'''
			: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)
	</div>
			::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)
	] --] 04:34, 1 September 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)
	<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.'''
			**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	</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)
			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)
	Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for ]:
			: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)
	<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.'''
	</div>
	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)
			== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
	:::::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)
	::::: 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)
	::::::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)
			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)
	: 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)
			:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
			::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	: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)
			: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::A 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 haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: I 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)
			::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (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)
			== Incivility at ] ==
	(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!)
			@] 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)
	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.
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	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)
			: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)
	:''"...sure, maybe they were, but they were also ''funny''. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously."'' - skip on a bit - ''"So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over <small>(sorry!)</small>..."''. I hope that my point is clear enough. ]] 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Actual disaster warning box===
			*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 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)
			*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{tl|Current disaster}}&mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 07:01, 1 September 2008 (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:
			== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
	<center>{{Current disaster}}
			{{atop
	<BR></center>
	::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)		| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
			:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
	<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=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	</div>
			* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
	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)
			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)
	: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)		: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)
	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}}
			{{abot}}
	--] (]) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I like it. Looks pretty similar to what ] puts on severe weather outbreak articles (and I'm blanking on the template name there). ] (]) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
	<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 seeking '''medical advice''' on Misplaced Pages are advised to remember the old saying,<br> '''"He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient."'''''</div>
			{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
	] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:
			=== Evidence ===
	: '''Note:''' ] ], <small>]</small> 16:23, 7 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.
	* This issue has been brought up at village pum p before (by me), and the overwhelming consensus is that disclaimer templates are not to be used. Medical advice, emergency evacuation advice, legal advice, etc. should be quickly removed from any article, and all article content should be clearly attributed to a third-party source. So we just do not need a template that says our advice may be wrong,,, we just don;t give advice. We say "The Governor said on Thursday: Get out now", and we do not need to say "Warning today might not be thursday, and that governor may not be your governor..." The general disclaimer covers us legally, and responsible editing (refraining from giving advice, attribution to third parties) covers us morally. Just ] to tags and templates. <font face="century gothic" color="#eeff00">''']''' </font><small>] ¤ ]</small> 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.
	** I agree with Jerry here. We do not need to include disclaimers in our articles, and it is beyond the purpose of this encyclopaedia to do it anyway. I do not mind the inclusion of the second sentence in {{tlf|Current disaster}}, as suggested above by Rootology, but anything more than that is excessive. And it is with a certain shock that I have just realised that there is an option to turn the template red (as in the second suggestion). I strongly oppose the by-nature highly selective and subjective treatment of the template and of the disasters in the articles thereof it is transcluded. Furthermore, I oppose the misuse of the template, which is called to serve a function entirely different from the one it is meant to. I seriously believe that the option to change the colour of the template should be removed. ], <small>]</small> 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			3.
	:::The only disclaimer function I see this template serving is by creating a more prominent link to our site-wide hazard disclaimer, otherwise it is substantially similar to our other current event templates. As for it's misuse, it's only transcluded into one article at present and will be removed once the event is past. As for the red option, I don't understand the rationale of your objection to it- the reason it was added was because in cases where life-safety is an issue, people may be reading the article in haste and not even see the template unless it is different from our usual clutter of maintenance templates. The red color is pretty subtle and well done in my perception- not over the top like the banners editors were putting on the articles before this option was added. &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.
			4.
	== {{template|Support}} {{template|Oppose}} ==
			- 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.
	Hi, Is there any reason not to have templates for ]&nbsp;'''Support''' and ]&nbsp;'''Oppose'''? I really struggle to accept the 'server load' argument that seemed to dominate the ]. Regards, ] 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.
	:They have them on lots of other projects. I'm sure someone will soon complain about voting, but I don't see the harm unless someone can prove there is a technical science/server reason not to. They were deleted by an ancient and probably not valid consensus from 3+ years ago: I'd say its overdue for review. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	::It was a valid consensus at the time. But I suspect that attitudes have changed. I should probably be taking this to ] but I just thought I'd solicit some opinions here first. Thanks, ] 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::One of the main reasons was because it encourages the notion that we're voting on issues, when we're really trying to develop a consensus. ] (]) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			] (]) 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: ], ], etc.
	Please explain how these might enhance debates and discussions on wikipedia? You ask "is there any reason not to have..?" can I ask "is there any reason to have.."". This is a genuine and not a polemical question.--] (]) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			=== Context ===
	:::(ec) Consistency with other wikis; it's annoying to type {{template|support}} and have to change it to '''support'''. Also ease of vote counting. There are decisions made here that look like votes but aren't (AFD, for eg). But there are things that genuinely are votes. Maybe a compromise would be to have the templates there, minus the symbols. Personally, I like the added colour, but I understand that there are people who don't. Regards, ] 13:37, 5 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==
	Presumably, looking over a discussion with those templates makes it easier to read, especially if we don't split into support and oppose sections. &mdash; ''']'''&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;'']'' 13:31, 5 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.
			] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
	:"Easier to read"? Methinks, you mean "easier to count". Can't see how it helps me read the actual discussion.--] (]) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Also easier to read selectively. Suppose one is closing an ], has made a decision, and wants to be sure that all the opposing arguments have been dealt with. Symbols make that easier to do. Cheers, ] 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
			:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
			:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
			:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
			:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
			:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Fun to have, but ultimately detrimental. We have enough knee-jerk supports and opposes breaking our processes without providing a set of templates to encourage more. ➨ <font color="red">❝''']'''❞</font> ] 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree with Redvers. Don't see a benefit for it (just my opinion). -- ]<sup>]</sup> 13:42, 5 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)
	Er - do the little plus and minus symbols really impact how people participate? I see plenty of '''Support''' and '''Oppose''' comments without detailed rationales, is there is any reason to think we'd see a storm of such comments if we enable the templates? ]] 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:::If people from other projects are having issues I probably wouldn't be opposed to a template being created that consists of:
	<pre>
	'''Support'''
	</pre>
	:::that wouldn't change much from what people do anyway. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
	*I have to say I like the look of them and the general idea behind them but, I think they may actually make things harder to read/understand if abbused in the same manner as <nowiki>'''support'''/'''oppose'''/'''keep'''/'''delete'''/'''don't delete'''</nowiki>/etc are at the moment. ] (]) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::There was a DRV not too long ago for them, and consensus there was still pretty clearly that we don't want them (but that they're kosher in userspace, so feel free to steal my versions at ], ], and ]). I'll go dig up the link. <font color="green">]</font>] 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
			I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.
	::Link is ]. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: If someone with templatre Clue can code it so that there is an argument |''reason'', and if it's missing then the !vote is not bolded and a comment "(no rationale is given for this comment)" then I think it would add some value. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Try ]. For eg:
	::::* <nowiki>{{User:Ben Aveling/support}}</nowiki> gives {{User:Ben Aveling/support}}
	::::* <nowiki>{{User:Ben Aveling/support|Reason being...}}</nowiki> gives {{User:Ben Aveling/support|Reason being...}}.
	:::: The equivalent templates for Oppose, Neutral and Question can be created once the inevitable bugs are worked out. Regards, ] 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
			However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
	:::::No further comments? I guess that means that there is consensus that templates without icons, as per the example, would be OK? Absent further comments or objections, I'll take this to DRV tomorrow. Thanks, ] 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Proposal raised at ]. Thanks all for your input. ] 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
	== Bizarre block ==
			] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{discussion top}}'''Resolved'''. Looks like just a mistake based on a simple misunderstanding or misinterpretation of ] processes, there's no crisis or ongoing problem, closing thread. ] <small>]</small> 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Note: Please don't inform the stewards of this thread. They've heard already, thanks. ] (]) 01:57, 6 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)
			: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)
			::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)
			{{abot}}
			== Emoji redirect ==
	On the basis of this 'warning': ]
			{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. ] | ] 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Topic ban appeal ==
	i.e. THEN WHO WAS PHONE was warning IP vandals, ] blocked THEN WHO WAS PHONE for 15 minutes. This seems completely bizarre to me. ] (]) 01:05, 6 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)
	::This is bizarre, and seems to go entirely against common sense. Every IP vandal had to make their first edit at one time or another, and putting a warning on their talk page helps to establish the record of their activity (and warnings) in case it is needed in the future. What policy does this go against, exactly? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed. Blocking is completely inappropriate for the perfectly normal process of issuing warnings to IP vandals; if we don't issue warnings, we shouldn't block. Bizarre. --]] 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:This is an entirely improper block, and Slrubenstein should resign his adminship. How else is any IP who repeatedly commits vandalism supposed to get through the warning tree before they can be listed at ]? There are so many things I want to say in outrage that I've redacted here. Gaaaahhhh. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:A very unhelpful and disruptive block. The notion that an editor could be blocked for leaving warnings on IP talk pages is unsettling. Moreover, many IP editors ''do'' read their talk pages and answer notes left on them. ] (]) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
			*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
			*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
			*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
	Slrubenstein just placed the same warning at ]. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:And to ]. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:18, 6 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)
	*I feel like every week I say "that's the worst block I've ever seen", but wow. Awful. Anybody mind if I note in his block log that the previous block was not supported by policy? - ] ] 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Please do, I had the same thought. ] (]) 01:21, 6 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)
	:::Done. Unfortunately, somebody needs to counsel Slrubenstein. See the message he/she left on my talk page. Wow. - ] ] 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' - I have engaged ] via talk page, and several have piled on, and of course there is this thread. Let's try to keep the discourse to policy and away from statements which can cause tempers to flare quickly. We've had enough wheel-warring for one week (at least), and that's coming from someone old enough to remember what "wheel" originally was - like my age has anything to do with it :-)
			{{abot}}
			== Andra Febrian report ==
	I think we can mostly agree that the warnings regarding editors who place warnings IP vandal talk pages are not in keeping with common practice, and that blocking an editor who does so is even ''less'' in keeping with common practice. We've alerted the admin in question...let's see what happens from here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
	:Agree. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			- caused many edit wars <br/>
	::Fine by me. I have to agree this was a bad play. I warn IPs all the time, because if they're vandalizing *right now* then they get the message and hopefully stop. That's how I was taught to do it, and that's really the right way to do it. ] <small>]</small> 01:36, 6 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 ===
	I think a block and emergency desysoping should be considered - I can't believe any admin would do something like this, which suggests the account may have been compromised or the admin is acting in bad faith. --] (]) 01:39, 6 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>
	:I thought of that, and I'm sure we're not the first to think of it. However, this is a long-time editor whose granting of admin rights doesn't even appear in the user rights log, and there isn't really anything unusual to be seen in the pattern of contributions of this editor. I'm certain there are a dozen people watching very closely; we can request more drastic steps when necessary - but I don't think that is required now. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			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 ==
	*Another problem seems to be that Slrubenstein is targeting and deleting IP talk pages where {{user|THEN WHO WAS PHONE?}} has left warnings. That's not good. - ] ] 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Cannot draftify page ==
	I left a link to this discussion on Slrubenstein's Talk page, but instead of responding here, he's only dealing with people on his Talk page. His most recent edit on this subject: indicates that he has no interest in actually stopping this bizarre behavior. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::Oh, my god. In that case, this seems to be a either a compromised account or worse. Should I put in an emergency desysop request on Meta? (actually, where do you do that?) ]]] 01:49, 6 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}}
			== Remove PCR flag ==
	(ec)It would appear {{admin|Slrubenstein}} either has an incredibly bad misunderstanding of official policy in regards to ], or this account has been hijacked. Either way, the safety of the project looks to be in danger and we should move accordingly. --] (]) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:I agree that it's possible the account is compromised. Either way, this kind of violation of policy/common sense from somebody with admin tools calls for desysoping. ]<sup>]</sup>] 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You think this block is bad? See ]. Outrageous. ] (]) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Heh, then contact a CU to see if it's compromised. But it may very well be a misunderstanding. Don't go summon the dragon yet. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::The account has not been compromised, it's just an admin with a poor understanding of policy (to put it mildly). Back in February, Slrubenstein delete several talk pages where an editor left warnings for IP users. Tonight, he/she deleted another 10, where {{user|THEN WHO WAS PHONE?}} left warnings. - ] ] 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: In any case, bureaucrats can't remove sysop access. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			== "The Testifier" report ==
	(cross posted from user page)
			{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	'''Please, folks''' - calm down. Slrubenstein has been engaged, and please note that none of the behavior in question has occurred since it was . We are poking at a sore wound right now, and that is '''not''' going to help. If Slrubenstein begins taking actions again that are against policy, we can deal with it then, but there is no point in continuing to discuss it at this point. The behavior has - at least for the moment - stopped. Let's leave it alone for now. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I concur, there is '''no emergency'''. Calm down all. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::<s>I'm glad that admins blocking other admins for stupid reasons is so commonplace as for you to retain your composure....</s> (striked since TWWP is not an admin, much to my surprise) --]] 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::After I read more about this situation, it really does not appear that his account is compromised. And although I agree this isn't exactly an emergency, I still would support removal of the tools if he really plans to continue these actions as an administrator. ]<sup>]</sup>] 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Problem with creating user talk page ==
	Rubenstein does have a point regarding the difficulty of meaningfully communicating with shared- and/or dynamic-IP users (not that warning templates are meaningful communication, mind you), However they are obviously not within the going definition of "nonsense pages" and this is a very stupid block, and I can only hope PHONE-guy doesn't take it personally. — ] 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. This was a bad block, no doubt about it. But let's get one thing straight, while it's come up--Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is ''required'': that is not true and never has been. ] means of course that warnings must be given before a block if there's a reasonable chance of a person changing their behavior, but in cases where there is no such chance (such as renewal of a previous pattern of vandalism on a new IP), blocking on sight is not a problem. That doesn't mean that Slrubenstein is ''right'' here, it just means that the extreme opposite point of view is not right either. ] 02:15, 6 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)
			::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 ==
	Admin ] has been engaged on this subject , , , and elsewhere. What seems ] from Slrubenstein appears . Activity has stopped, and clearly a number of editors below will be watching. It does not appear there is any compromise or need for panic, and if it turns out that such is the case, we can panic ''later''. Otherwise, nothing to see here (anymore). <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			] from the past month (December 2024).
	===HOLD ON a second===
	Why are we discussing meta-wikipedia viewpoints when an admin is pulling this shit? Maybe I'm the last person who things that BLOCKS ARE NOT SMALL THINGS. They are HUGE. I've been blocked once and I still regret it 3 years later. Someone tell me I'm freaking crazy, cause I sure feel like it. --]] 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Ok, you're freaking crazy. (hey, you asked for it!)Seriously, though, can we cut it out with the over-reactions and the RANDOM CAPS? Things are happening. The wheels of justice grind slow, but they can grind mighty fine. ] (]) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	=== Thread closure ===
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	I'll note that there are two editors attempting to mute discussion. I will not revert another closure, but it is disruptive. ] (]) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	I will also note that topics can change in any given thread, however, templates tend to disrupt the normal discussion flow. Off topic (or change-topic) discussion is not a good reason to add these templates. ] (]) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	:If I may, I wasn't concerned about a compromised account, I was concerned because putting a warning on an empty IP talk page is something I do as a matter of course numerous times almost every day, and I don't want to get blocked! I'm glad to see that most folks here seem to agree that this admin's take on it is not normative. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]<sup>'''(] / ])</sup>'''</span> 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] ]
			</div>
	:For my own part, I reject the characterization of closing the discussion as attempting to mute it. The point of this thread was to discuss the specific warning and block actions of a specific administrator. That issue has been resolved and deserves to be listed as such. If there is subsequent <s>wikidrama</s> debate about what the exact correct procedures are or should be (good luck with that), even if it was sparked by this thread, that doesn't change the fact that it is peripheral and doesn't belong as part of this thread. This one deserves to be closed as resolved simply for the sake of organization. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''Oversight changes'''
	:The admin in question has agreed to stop these actions, so I think the matter is closed unless he decides to try and change the policy, but that wouldn't happen here anyway. I think this thread can be closed for good now. --] (]) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	{{discussion bottom}}
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			</div>
	=== Response to Chick Bowen's comments in the section above ===
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	Please read ]:
			* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
	:Important! – your report must follow these three points:
			* 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.
	::1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
			] '''Technical news'''
	::2. Unregistered users must be active now.
			* 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.
	::3. '''The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop'''.
			] '''Arbitration'''
	If I (or anybody else who is not an admin and is reporting vandalism at ]) list a currently-vandalizing user on ], if they have ''not'' been given the sufficient number of warnings, the listing is '''''always''''' removed with no action being taken. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
	:That applies to AIV. In any case, AIV is not a policy page. ] does not specify that warning is necessary. Once again, if there is evidence that a new IP is actually a returning disruptor with a new IP, there is no need for a warning, nor is one routinely given. I'm just describing current practice here--I'm not stating an opinion or, really, anything new. ] 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::So how do I get a new IP blocked without going through the warning tree? Post it here or on ANI? You get told "take it to AIV". If I take to AIV without going through the warning tree, the listing gets deleted. Should I admin canvass? <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::ANI is usually best for the clear-cut stuff--our friends who like to put filthy pictures into prominent articles, that sort of thing. I admit I haven't worked on AIV for quite a long time, but I believe the idea there is that for ordinary schoolboy vandalism the warnings should be gone through. ] 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Now I am thoroughly confused. You yourself said above ''Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been''. Now you tell me that I do have to go through the warnings. I think I'll just continue what I've been doing, since to do anything else will just cause me too much frustration when my listings at AIV get removed without the vandals being dealt with. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Here is my perspective as an admin who has processed AIV reports nearly every day for the past nine months ... ]'s statement that "efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines" meshes nicely with both ] and ]. When it comes to unregistered users, ''if we do not warn them that their vandalism will not be tolerated, how will they ever learn otherwise?'' In my experience, a very large fraction of anonymous users receiving talk page warnings quit vandalizing after their first or second warnings. Since most of these "experimenting" vandals are scared off by the warnings issued by our dedicated vandal patrollers ... Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best. As if admins are not already busy enough (to say nothing of the fact that is would idle one of our most powerful anti-vandalism tools: our corps of patrollers)! --] (]) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	:Let me just add that as far as I am concerned, there is far too much assumption of bad faith on AIV that the people listing vandals are the bad guys, and that the vandals themselves are just misunderstood. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
	::I suspect that's true. ] 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	: Corvus, that's not quite true. Whilst I'm less likely to block an IP that hasn't been warned completely, if I look at the contribs and see that it's clearly an IP on a vandalism spree and isn't likely to contribute positively any time soon, then I'll block anyway . However, what I won't do is block if an account is insufficiently warned and appears to be a clueless newbie editor or content dispute (in fact sometimes I won't block these even if they have 4ims). I know a number of other admins work like this too.
			----
	:Whilst 90%+ of reporters on AIV are good, there are always people, especially those with semi-automated tools, who are too quick to judge things as vandalism. For example, I have seen reports for people "vandalising" the sandbox, or their own user pages, and once for someone who put "I f*cked up that last edit" in an <i>edit summary</i>. A lot of AIV reports could be prevented by instead of a massive automated boilerplate on their talkpage, just a "Hi there - it's probably a good idea if....". Just my thoughts. <b>]</b> 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
	Why does Kralizek misrepresent me? She writes, "Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best." which not only sounds snide, insulting, and an attempt to bait me, it is just not true., Nowhere have I ever written that onlhy admins should deal with IP users, and only via vlocks. In fact, my position is the opposite. I have stated that when the vandalism is of the juvinile sort, and is a case of one or a few edits ove a very short period of time from a public, shared adress, editors 9any editor) should just revert the vandalism. Please tell me where I said only admins should do this, and only via blocks. If I expressed myself unclearly or incorrectly I will apologize immediately. Otherwise apologize for lying about what I wrote. ] | ] 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
	:Bad-faith accusations of me being insulting or lying ring rather hollow as we can all readily see the proof in your edit history:
			}}}}
	**At 19:24 you said to ''THEN WHO WAS PHONE?'', "Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandalism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist." Note that you made zero distinction between static, shared, or public IP addresses in your instructions to this editor.
			<!--
	**Then 56 minutes later, you said on your own talk page, "If it is an obvious case of vandalism, and it is a shared address, an admin can block the address for six or twelve or twenty-four hours without giving a warning."
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
	:Taken together, it appears that you pretty clearly told a vandal fighter to stop warning IPs and that admins should just block the vandals without ever trying to educate them. I am sorry if this is not what you were meaning, but all we have to go on is the face value of what you wrote, and what you wrote is dangerously out of step with current guidelines, policies, and community consensus. While I have the utmost respect for your long history of contributions to the project, I suspect that your dated understanding of our guidelines and policies means that you would have great difficulty passing a modern RfA. (And for reference, my username is ''Kralize'''c!''''' and I am a "he" - and have the wife and three kids to prove it!) --] (]) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
	Thank you for explaining, I appreciate the chance to clear up the misunderstanding. I fear you took two statements out of context. The first statement was indeed a criticism of the creation of new pages for IP addresses. But I did not say that non-admins should not deal with vandals. In fact, I have on several occasions applauded PHONE and others' vigilent reversion of vandalism. That is a way of dealing with vandals that is necessary, tedious, and valuable and I am grateful to any editor who does it, and I certainly do not think that one has to be an admin to do this.
	The second comment was a direct response to another editor who claimed that policy required that one provide a warning before blocking. I quoted the policy that stated that one need not provide a warning before blocking a vandal. That was my only point: that the editor criticizing me was misquoting policy. Note: the issue has to do solely with whether a warning is required prior to a block (and policy explicitly says not always). The issue did ''not'' have to do withe whether only admins can block vandals, or whether all editors can block vandals. I simply did not address this particular issue. Now, Misplaced Pages may have a policy that only admins can block, and if you do not like that policy you can propose to change it. But I di dnot create that policy, and nothing I wrote was a defense of the policy. The conversation at that time was not over whether admins or non-admins could block, it was whether Misplaced Pages policy required a warning. One editor said it did, and I quoted the policy saying it did not.
	I now understand why you misunderstood me and am willing to grant that you did so with good intentions but you were not assuming good faith on my part. In both instances, I did assume good faith - one can assume good faith in another editor and disagree. In one case I explicitly said I knew the editor was acting in good faith but I though what s/he was doing was a mistake. In the second, I simply assume that the editor was acting in good faith when s/he misquoted policy; I did not question his/her intentions, I just asserted that s/he was mistaken and quoted policy.
	So with all due respect, and acknowledging now your intentions were good, you were mistaken to take two different comments I made to two different editors concerning two different matters, and infer by connecting them that I think only admins should deal with vandals.
	You are right that my view about the pointless or even counter-productive creation of new pages by warning IP addresses is out of step with the community. I hope you will acknowledge that once this was clear to me I stopped doing what I was doing. I do this to defer to the will of the community, not because I agree. But i do agree that neither i nor anyone else should revert these warnings unless - if ever - the community consensus changes. I think there is a need for new discussion on how we handle vandalism, especially from IP addresses. I mean just what I said and i am sincere and it in no way means I question the value of the hard work many editors do in reverting vandalism. I hope it is crystal clear to you and everyone else that I appreciate any editor who reverts vandalism, and thank them for their efforts. Is it possible for us to open up discussion on our policies in this regard while assuming good faith on one another's part? I certainly think someone can disagree with me in good faith. ] | ] 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective; we all have a much better understanding of your intentions now. Please accept my apologies for being unnecessarily snide, as I see that your intentions were good. --] (]) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Kralizic, I canot tell you how much this means to me - thank you. I hope everyone else who was active last night understands that I really thought it was clear that my actions were well intended and I deeply regret the grief I caused so many people. I will wait for things to cool down a bit more before inviting a discussion on our vandalism policy, but when I do it is precisely because I do respect and value the views of the community, and respect wiki process enough to think that we can have a frank discussion while assuming good faith on the part of peoploe with whom we disagree. I realize that people may feel it is noit worth discussion, or the discussion may lead us right back to what I know see is the status quo. I have always valued in Misplaced Pages the hope that, however difficult, consensus can be balanced with an open, never-ending discussion about a work that will always be "in process." Anywa, I apologize to you and others if I expressed myself unclearly or inappropriately - I know that at least a few times I was curt and eliptical and I know that didn't help things and I regret that. ] | ] 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I may have missed something, but I don't think I have seen either an apology to TWWP for the block, or an understanding that blocking someone for issuing warnings was clearly contrary to policy. ] (]) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I would like a straightforward explanation as well, and a clarification of the policy on warning vandals. This vandalism fighter is chilled to the bone by Slrubenstein's action. I thought I was doing the right thing. This could have been me. '''I''' could have been blocked. This is not minor, despite the premature archive and the "move along nothing to see" attitude shown by many on this thread. I've never been afraid to edit here before now. ] (]) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Slrub has been brought up to speed on current practice and won't be issuing any more "read me" blocks to vandal fighters, and vandal fighters should continue with their good work and continue warning IP users as usual. @Duncan, I believe is what you are looking for. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::13 minutes after I asked where it was it gets posted! ] (]) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Query about ] ==
	Hi! I'm a newbie admin, so I would appreciate advice as to what should be done here. I was patrolling the New User's contributions, and I noticed one name cropping up time and time again, that of ]. This editor's actions appear to consist soley of removing references to anything barefoot, and the edit summary is almost always the same: ''Removed barefoot fetish vandalism''.
	I have no experience of the topics of any of the articles this person has edited, so I don't know if this is genuine vandalism revertion (although there doesn't seem to be any pattern to it), or if this is someone going through censoring Misplaced Pages from anything to do with bare feet. I know ] and ] should apply, and if this is genuine reversion, I don't want to stop it. If it isn't, I would like this nipped in the bud before there is too much to do to revert it all. What should be done? ] (]) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Actually, I saw someone else going through and starting to revert the edits, having dropped a query on the talk page. I then decided to help go through the list, and then drop a level one censor warning on the talk page. I'll keep an eye on Crommorc, I think. ] (]) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::There is, apparently, a "barefoot fetish vandal", indefinitely blocked for disruption, who launches socks from time to time. If someone could provide the SSP link, and review the accounts that Crommorc was reverting, it may be that these are more of the same. ] (]) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::They are back as {{user|TheBoneWoman}}--] (]) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Blocked as a sock of {{user|Crommorc}}, who is apparently a sock of {{user|DownTownM}}, who is a sock of {{user|Seasideplace}}, who is a sock of...who? - ] ] 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Inappropriate conduct of administrators on ] ==
	Since protection, numerous administrators edited this page without talk page consensus. This of course led to heated discussions, reverts and so on. I had to admonish four administrators until now. I request that other administrators help to take care of this issue. I may report this to the current arbitration case on Sarah Palin. Thanks, <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:] could apply loosely to your claim. Though maybe it doesn't, I havent followed this super closely. ] 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Cenarium, providing diffs would be helpful to understand what you find objectionable. ] (]) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I have already submitted possibly incomplete evidence on this to the current case. Please feel free to use my talk if you wish anything to be added to that evidence. ] (]) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::, , , and others more minor or older. Discussion on this happened on the talk page and at ]. I won't be around until tomorrow. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is getting ridiculous. Since the full protection was last reinstated 2 days ago, there's been more than 50 edits. That's about 50 times more than most full protected articles. If this isn't a sign that extended full protection of high-profile current event articles is a bad idea, I don't know what is. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. People need to step back and calm down--] (]) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, Cenarium. Looking at the diffs one by one, 1) i'm not sure about the state of consensus at this time 2) already listed at arbcom case 3) without reading up, my instinct is that rmving blatantly nonconsensual edits is fine, even if it feels a bit disruptive on the talk page when ''modification'' of the addition is approaching consensus 4) seems like an honest mistake. Further discussion welcome tomorrow, of course, should you wish it with me. ] (]) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	No, people do not need to calm down, people need to get very very concerned as this sets a very very very very very very bad precedent for wikipedia editing on contentious articles. These admins need to be held accountable for violating Wiki policy, and their admin privileges stripped. ] (]) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	I've requested the arbs put in a temporary injunction to stop admins from just arbitrarily editing this extremely contentious and hostile protected article . There's not really any other way to get everyone to calm down besides telling everyone by force to stay hands off that I can see. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Shall we start taking bets on when the devs will implement a new protection level? <code></code>, anyone? ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::]. ] (]) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::OMG!!! Now we can officially kick those pesky habits of self-control and critical reasoning! ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 17:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Please note that Kevin ''chose'' to revert Bogdangiusca's, but not Moreschi's nonconsensus edits. Bogdangiusca actually put back material Moreschi removed. I would very much like to be informed of how I, a non-admin, can go about requesting sanctions against Moreschi. I feel that when the dust clears, Moreschi's edits will not be viewed favorably even in the context of this fiasco. ] (]) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	**You can propose sanctions or anything else ]. ] (]) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	***Moreschi altered her political philosophy to say she was a "classical ]" who was ''endorsing'' the "]" which is a redirect to ]. Read what it says at Night watchman state! Moreschi's ] is a worse violation of BLP than people recognize. ] (]) 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	****If she is indeed a classical libertarian, then she does indeed believe in the ]ian concept of a night watchman state. Nothing wrong with CM's edit. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*****Nice work with the if there. Can I point out the disruption to the talk page various admin edits caused. The talk page was where us peons tried to edit the article. It was most dispiriting, it lead to increased contention, and it made it difficult to suggest to editors credibly that ]. Not exactly helpful to undermine the concept of consensus so blatantly. ] (]) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	******Also want to thank the admins who monitored edit requests. ] (]) 07:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	=== Unprotection requested ===
	It appears ] (]) 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:What was the reason for forking my request here? ] (]) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::To keep others above updated. I noticed you hadn't left a note above saying "I've requested unprotection", so I thought I'd better do it, for clarity. ] (]) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, I had not planned on a note here, unprotection requests belong ]. ] (]) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I declined the request, as more wheel warring is not the answer. Any admin who unprotects this page will be subject to sanction. - ] ] 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I just want to make a point now, that is is not fair that I can't edit, yet the administrators can. What kind of message does that send? That admins are better judges/editors? No self control here. ] (]) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I think the point is not to wheel war but rather to build a consensus around whether now is a good time to try reducing the protection level. During the initial AE, today was suggested as a target date and a number of people agreed with that. Given the current state of affairs, it might still be too early to unprotect, but since we need to do it eventually, it is worth discussing what the right time is. What the right forum for that discussion is, I'm not sure, but I think it is premature to say that unprotection is not an option. ] (]) 17:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I think it should be unprotected, as it is profoundly unfair that only admins are allowed to make complete and utter fools of themselves on that article. We are getting a very limited view of the lack of responsibility of Wikipedians, and the impossibility of achieving consensus by restricting editing to trusted and respectable editors. Why not let us untrustworthy and irresponsible ones see if we can do an even worse job? I know the bar has been set to a very high level, but I'm sure there must be one or two non-admins up to the challenge. ] (]) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: *lol* I laughed, at least :-) <strong>]<small> o ]</small></strong> 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	Any and all dicussions on protection or non protection should take place ].--] (]) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
	<sub>Subscript text</sub>
	=== Cascading protection? ===
	Should we set the cascading bit to stop vandalism? ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Is there a problem going on now? ] (]) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::No, that would be a preventitive measure. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't see the need as of now, welcome to explore it later. ] (]) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Whoops, looked like . ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Would anyone object to me semi-protecting all currently unprotected templates transcluded on ]? I did this with ] and ], and no one challenged me, but in light of the current ArbCom case surrounding this article, I would like to get a second opinion before acting. ]]] 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Well, two more templates got vandalized, so I started semi-protecting. Then Mr. Z-man cascade-protected ]. Should I semi-protect the templates anyway so that when the cascade-protection is removed from Palin's page, we're still good? ]]] 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== protection of ] ==
	Jimbo recently banned PD, and his userpage and talk page are currently protected. I think the talk page would be a good location for discussion of issues related to this, and think it would be a good idea to unprotect. I've dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page, and am inviting feedback (and hopefully a small 'unprotect' action :-) ) cheers, ] (]) 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:From what I can tell, Damian is not welcome to post. Also, we should not be taunting him by posting to the talk page. If you wish to propose an unblock, do so here. I endorse the talk page protection. Incidentally I've asked Wales to clear up the blocklog. ] (]) 03:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::] with the protecting admin indicates that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course). I still think it's a good idea to unprotect the talk page. ] (]) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::The user is no longer welcome to commit posts to the wiki. In this way, the talk page can remain protected. ] (]) 04:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::From ]: "Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages". - ] ] 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Adding to that from ] ''Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users.'', and since Jimbo is our Constitutional Monarch/god-King, I'm really really not seeing the point in trying to push an unban dialogue at this time. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, that is still policy, untill Jimmy abdicates that authority or the community takes it. Which will not happen anytime soon - no need. ] (]) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::ok, ok! - I see PD's very ''very'' banned! :-) I still think it'd be healthy to unprotect, and for reasons beyond an 'unban' discssion, but will think on it a bit more... cheers, ] (]) 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Healthy for who? Certainly not for whoever does the unprotecting. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::for the wiki of course! :-) (your comment made me smile though - and seems accurate at this point!) - my views on this relate to the thinking that 'we' (the en wiki community) are depressingly good at creating, and sustaining 'enemies' in all sorts of ways that we really don't have to pursue.... that, and the fact that it's almost always good to ] :-) ] (]) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	<- While we're here would someone be kind enough to add him to the ]? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:<nowiki>{{sofixit}}</nowiki> :) ] (]) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	The community needs to discuss this openly, and it won't do to simply say that Jimbo does what Jimbo wants. We need an explanation about this block, and we need to discuss whether we, as a community, feel it was the appropriate solution. Many people, myself included, admire Peter's article work, and that alone should be enough to cause us to a consider other approaches. Even though Peter left of his own accord immediately before the ban, he might decide to return if this ban wasn't in place; furthermore, to slam the door behind a contributor like this adds insult to injury and denigrates all his work. ] (]) 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:According to him, he scrambled his password. The chances that he will return again as Peter Damian therefore seem low. He's demonstrated in the past that he's capable of registering another username. Maybe what you should seek to clarify is whether he is allowed to do so, and under what circumstances if any. It appears as though its left to ArbCom to determine that, so perhaps RfAr is what you want? ]] 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Could somebody please be so kind to explain (NPOV'ishly?), to an outside sometimes-journalist observer, just what this guy did so as to suffer The Wrath Of Jimbo? Note I'm not taking sides at this moment as to whether the action was right or wrong, only trying to figure it out -- ] (]) 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::He had been in a dispute with FT2 on some content matters. And he posted which there was some off-site speculation may have been an aggravating factor--threatening to go to the ] in regards to their pending donation of funding to the WMF, or something like that. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::A good guess, but the block log leaves us in the dark: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom." Not only does it not give a reason, it's insulting. ] (]) 06:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thanks - is there any evidence other than speculation, that the donation was a factor? The comment also discusses other issues. -- ] (]) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I was entirely unaware of that comment, and so it was no factor whatsoever.--] (]) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Beats me. I know Damian had a bee in his bonnet to make the ] and ] related articles totally compliant with ]. Your guess is as good as mine otherwise till Jimmy says whats up, since you know as much as I know. I just know this guy was a far above average content editor. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well, at least in this instance there is no question about Jimbo's ego being involved; he is demonstrating no fear of appearing very uncool. ] (]) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I think what we need most of all is: A) an explanation from Jimbo about why he imposed this ban; and B) community discussion of whether Peter should be allowed to edit in the future if he wishes (under whatever account), and whether this ban was appropriate. ] (]) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: It is definitely disappointing to see Jimbo making such bans (explicitly invoking godking authority in the block notice) but not even posting any explanation anywhere. That's not something the community should tolerate. ] ] 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I suspect, knowing Jimbo, that he will make some kind of statement when he feels able to phrase it without compromising the privacy and dignity of those involved. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I'm constantly surprised that people seem to assume there is some sort of God-given right to edit Misplaced Pages and that the removal of said right is potentially a major outrage. The fact is that we are all here by permission of the management, and if the management - in this case Jimbo - decides to withdraw that permission, they have an absolute right to do so, for any reason. -- ] (]) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Jimbo will explain when he has worked out a reason that he thinks will satisfy just enough people. I have no opinion about Peter Damian, but I do feel that it is time that Jimbo started acting like a constitutional monarch (something he has claimed to be) instead of acting like an autocrat. ] (]) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::DuncanHill, it is one thing to disagree with my decision. It is another thing to claim that I am working out an explanation that will satisfy "just enough people". Please Assume Good Faith, eh?
	::Please review the users' block log, history of harassment, and off-site attacks. I am drawing a line here in the very strong hopes that the rest of community will feel supported to follow suit and insist that such behaviors are always unacceptable. When we tolerate people who engage in bad-faith personal attacks and sniping and off-site attacks, we poison the goodwill of the community. We are a simple charitable effort to share knowledge, and as such, we often allow ourselves to be victimized by people who are here more to attack us and sow discontent and drama. Let's all get together and say: enough. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this decision, can we talk about it?" It is quite another thing to say things like "All hail, chief of security and protector of the community, FT2. The bodies of the guilty and the innocent burn together with that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning." Such behavior is absolutely unacceptable and people who do things like that are, quite simply, not welcome to continue in the community. There is a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists, and let's keep this community healthy by insisting that people who behave that way are not welcome.--] (]) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Where did he post that rant you're quoting? Didn't see it anywhere. ] ] 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Where did Jimbo state to be a constitutional monarch? I totally love that idea! Perhaps admins should be renamed 'Lords of the Wiki'! :) --''']]''' 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::He (=Peter Damian) posted that on WR. – ] ] 12:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yep, see . - ] 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Okay, thanks, that does make it appear in a different light. Still, I'll echo DuncanHill's comment below; I'd expect some explanation for such a step to be given without prompting, at the time it was made. ] ] 12:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Here is one example (of Jimbo using the "constitutional monarch" phrase) from Misplaced Pages, . ] (]) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Very recently, there was . Actually, English Misplaced Pages is more like a barbarian kingship, where the tribal chief occasionally personally puts offenders to death. Constitutional monarchs don't go around dispensing King's Justice. This is not to assert that "Jimbo I" :-) is a bad king, <em>per se</em>. But the system sure isn't one with much check on supreme executive power. -- ] (]) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: That comment is pretty disgusting. If Peter Damian had a less problematic history I guess there might be more of a tendency to forgive or at least try to understand and de-escalate, but his behaviour over the NLP business, over which we assumed good faith, combined with that kind of comment, gives a strong appearance of being here solely to pursue a vendetta - and God knows we have quite enough trouble without that kind of thing. So, for what it's worth and to the surprise I guess of nobody, I support the ban. And yes, I feel rather let down here as well, since I had engaged with peter over the NLP issue and generally supported is attempts to scale that back somewhat. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Oh bollocks, Jimbo. It was not only quite poetic, but was heartfelt '''and in line with what his view in how best Misplaced Pages should be served''' (that would be Good Faith comment, that it would). Not only that, but he later apologised to FT2 - publicly, in the same forum - for his language. Nor did I see FT2, to his credit, take any offence at the language but rather seek to explain further his position. At that place, at least, there is an ongoing dialogue. For what it is worth, I too have been arguing over there against PD's viewpoint; as ever, I am in the minority and am being refuted - but always politely (within context) and in the expectation of being allowed further dialogue. Perhaps you may wish to join the debate? You certainly are more likely to be allowed to express your opinions there than some, many or most of the correspondents there would be here...
	:::By the way, "bollocks" is simple British English usage meaning rubbish - not vulgar or derogatory. Ask ]. ] (]) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::* ''Bollocks'' is still considered quite vulgar and derogatory. See . ] (]) 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Hang on. Which bits are poetic? The WR comment quoted above? For what it is worth, some people may be missing an undertone here. When I read ''"that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning"'', I think of bodies in pits, and book-burning, and I think of the Nazis and the Holocaust (where bodies were cremated in open-air pits - I should say here that I'm no expert on the Holocaust and my Googling unfortunately brought up a mixture of Holocaust history site and Holocaust denial sites). Not quite sure where the "in the morning" bit comes from. Now, ''if'' some of the people here are reacting that way (interpreting this as Holocaust imagery), they should say this upfront, and not just call it "disgusting" and assume people know why it is possibly more disgusting than using other imagery. ] (]) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::* Thanks for pointing this out. I definitely got the same association reading it. ] ] 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't think a healthy community would be in the position of having to ''ask'' for explanations of your actions - a healthy community would be one in which explanations of extraordinary actions were seen as routine. Both you and arbcom should be aware by now that unexplained acts of this nature serve only to stir up discontent and make it harder to trust people. If you feel the need to exercise your powers as an autocrat, OK, but at least explain at the time. ] (]) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I've changed Damian's entry on ] to something more descriptive, see . Cheers, ] 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Whether Peter Damian was justifiably angry or not, I doubt that somebody who because it's a place filled with "book burners and hooligans" can be expected to contribute constructively from that point on. ] (]/]) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	: Agreed. Very few websites would welcome into their community someone which is actively trying to undermine their funding efforts. But that's not the real issue here, it's more that he has essentially declared himself at war with another contributor, one who is in good standing. We have enough disputes already without people coming back after absences to stir up new ones. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::The comment linked above (see ) was made 8 days (over a week) ago. Why is it only being brought up now? If the block is justified, then those who saw the comment at the time, and did nothing, should be apologising for their inaction. And Guy, people in good standing can both lose and regain that good standing (cf. ]) and those who come back after blocks shouldn't have that fact alone held against them. It is their actions now that matter. Whether they came back after a break or not is irrelevant. And please, can the ''article'' issues be resolved? The important things here is to not ignore valid criticisms (if they are valid) merely because the person who raised the criticisms has been banned. If the criticisms are not justified, can we please have an open and clear response explaining why the criticisms are not valid? And I agree that Jimbo's wording in the block log ''"User says he is leaving. Good timing."'' (he went on to say more) is open to many interpretations, not all of which will be charitable. Maybe it would be best if Jimbo clarified what he meant there? ] (]) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't think Jimbo, or anyone else in this thread, has said Peter's criticism of some articles were not valid. Consensus on the deletions has shown that they are. But valid criticism in that instance doesn't excuse behavior beyond the pale in many others, which is I think the point Jimmy is trying to make. And the book burning comment above is from a bit ago, but the comment from Peter on WR further up (bodies burning, all hail chief of security) is from yesterday. ]] 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I have asked Jimmy to unblock and reblock with a clear reason... of course I don't think any admin will be desysopped for unblocking and immediately reblocking indef with a clear reason AND Jimbo's instructions. ] (]) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That sounds like process-wonkery to me. Simpler to just wait for this discussion to be archived and then link to the archive from his user page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::This will be the second time in a week I have been told that I was process wonking, I'm sick of it. Waiting for a discussion to conclude is more wonkery than actually going and doing it, no? Please be more careful in the future, calling someones good intentions "wonkery" is offensive. ] (]) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I would add that adding links to a user's page is less useful than the block log. User pages of banned and indefinitely blocked users are routinely deleted. Admins (and this includes Jimbo) really must give reasons in the block logs and deletion logs for their actions. Failing to do so makes it harder for people to carry out independent reviews now or later. ] (]) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	'''To Jimbo Wales:''' (previous three words added by comment mover) Well, thank you for the response ... But ... THAT WAS IT??? That's a key reason you cite? The 265th post, on a site which often has a large amount of ranting and raving in discussion threads (sorry WR'ers, it's true), significantly moves Jimmy Wales, (co)Founder of Misplaced Pages, President of $70 million valuation Wikia Inc., to personally ban the supposed miscreant? i.e., a trivial flame-war, which the guy says he's apologized for. I'm not sure which is worse - if that's a real reason, or if it's a poor excuse for a poor excuse (tedious point - this sentence is an attempted humorous commentary on logical possibilities, not an accusation). And before you call me a troll, I'll note I've repeatedly said Misplaced Pages group dynamics fascinates me, and in fairness you should see why from such a perspective this is simply amazing. Look, I know we often disagree, but take this in good faith - what you're doing comes across as because-I-can, just plain random craziness against some unfortunate minor offender who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Godking is in a churlish mood. -- ] (]) 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:You've got that completely backwards. If the victim of Damian's attacks had been a plain ordinary user, he would have been booted out of here long ago for sheer nastiness. I would have done it without a second thought, were I a simply an admin; I might nor might not have bothered to post on ANI about it. But because it was FT2, a fellow arbitrator (and of course a rather controversial one at times), I knew that if I had blocked or banned Peter, the masses would have yelled "abuse of power", "cronyism", "bullying", and so on. It was hardly one post that caused the banning; it was a long crescendo of ugliness. But FT2 didn't ban him, and neither did I, and I know a number of admins also demurred, which is why we asked Jimbo to take a look. Does the community feel we should have acted without waiting for Jimbo? Next time, because of what Jimbo has said here, I know I'll be less tolerant of continuing vile attacks here or elsewhere. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::"We asked Jimbo to take a look" - are you saying that the Arbcom requested Jimbo to look at the editor and do what he thought fit? ] (]) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::No. FT2 did, and then I did a while later. It was not in any way an official ArbCom request; I don't know what FT2 said, but I said "please take a look at FT2's request" when Jimbo took a little while getting around to it and FT2 mentioned it to me. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the clarification. ] (]) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	===How we treat long time editors - make the effort to inform the community===
	Jimbo's block may have been perfectly reasonable - but an uninvolved admin would have no way of knowing without spending a lot of time hunting through links and diffs. Peter Damian worked on this project for over five years - he create a lot of quality content. Jimbo, you owe him and the community better. If you want to ban him, take a few minutes and explain to the community why. Have the courtesy to use an accurate and informative block summary. Make the effort to start a note at WP:AN. Don't conduct court behind closed doors. Don't sit around and wait for people to ask. Is this too much to expect of you? Your actions here are nothing short of slovenly. Really, it's not like we're expecting you to break a sweat or anything. --] 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Not only is Jimbo citing personal attacks that occurred on a different website, but Peter subsequently acknowledged that his attacks were excessive, apologized, and even had some kind things to say about FT2's work. I strongly agree with Duk above&mdash;long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment, and this is nothing of the sort; furthermore, the community is entitled to explanations (at the very least) when such bans are handed down. I also think it reflects very poorly on Jimbo that he cannot give his explanation without insulting other people discussing the matter: "a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists..." This kind of thing seems unfitting for a "constitutional monarch". ] (]) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:''"Long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment..."'' Yes, that is exactly right. A good summary of why people believe Peter should be banned. ]] 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Very good point, Everyking, about the "complainers". To be clear, I'm not complain about this ban. I'm complaining about an hour of my life wasted hunting through logs and diffs and histories, all because Jimbo is too lazy to write a note. I wonder how many other administrators wasted their time doing this too. And what about other long time editors who may have respected Peter, only to see him banned without explanation - what do you think the effect on morale will be? --] 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::An hour of your life wasted? Well, Damian's has quite some info. One log entry contains , and another one reads: ''"Last chance at WP, no more harassment or disruption will be tolerated"''. - ] 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::''Damian's block log has quite some info.'' Ya, too bad the log itself notes that it isn't trustworthy.--] 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I must admit that Jimbo's comment there might have, um, discouraged people from participating in this thread! ] is a better term than wikianarchist, I think. But I get Jimbo's point. He doesn't want to stop people disagreeing with him (far from it), but he wants discussion to be logical and centred on the specifics of this case, not merely principled opposition. I think if people concentrated on what happened here with regards to Peter Damian, and thrashed out some agreement, then Jimbo might listen to that. ] (]) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I must be misreading you here because you seem to state that ] have no place on Misplaced Pages. ] <small>] </small> 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	It would be nice, I think, for Jimbo to acknowledge that Damian ''has'' made some valuable contributions to the project. It's wrong to suggest that he was just here to troll. He's made hundreds of valuable mainspace edits. ]''']''' 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	I found this discussion through WR some minutes after wondering why he was banned. WR is pretty nice for determining why someone was banned when the block log and user and talk pages don't say. --] 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	* This is not what a constitutional monarch does, Jimbo. Seth is right about this being more "barbarian king" behaviour. Secondly, although Damian had clearly lost his mind as regards FT2, this does not necessarily mean he was incapable of being constructive elsewhere, so long as he is kept away from FT2. As to what he posts on WR...well, who cares? That site has no credence except that which we lend it. Bless their little hearts, all the people I block can rant and rave about me all they like over there. I don't care, that damages nobody except them. They just wind up looking small. Unless Damian had been involved in "outing", this may be excessive. ] (]) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm fascinated by the quasi-official status WR is coming to have here. Should we just fold it into project space, make their admins sysops here, and give them two or three seats on the arbcom? Or would it be better to just redirect ANI to their site? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I think a link on PD's user page to the WR thread would suffice. --] 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	In line with Carcharoth's suggestion above, I will make a simple outline of what happened as it appears to me:
	:1) Personal dispute between Peter and FT2, on both WP and WR, culminating in Peter comparing FT2 to a secret police chief on WR
	:2) Peter's comments are widely deemed excessive and out of place by others on WR, and Peter apologizes, going so far as to commend FT2's work on a sockpuppet investigation
	:3) Peter leaves WP due to this dispute with FT2 (may have occurred before point 2?)
	:4) Jimbo bans Peter without explanation
	:5) Jimbo says he banned Peter because of Peter's comments toward FT2 on WR, without noting the subsequent apology.
	Is there agreement on those facts? ] (]) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::That seems like an oversimplification of the facts. The idea of Jimbo Wales as "god-king" seems more appealing than these endless discussions. Also, one of the endemic problems with Misplaced Pages is a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that it's OK for certain long-time users/admins/contributors to use foul/excessive language or engage in their own tribal barbarism. We often see newbies blocked all too quickly, while the admins protect each other's bad behavior (like the "Blue line" in policing). Jimbo's blocking of Peter Damian suggests that no one is immune and after being given seven chances at reform, the 8th was a ban. Yet it may not be a permanent ban, just an "example" ban, to attempt to get others into line.
	] 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::You're against double standards, then&mdash;but isn't it a double standard if Jimbo is allowed to ban someone for an off-site insult (which was followed by an apology!), when no other admin would be able to make a block on those grounds? Furthermore, isn't it a double standard if Jimbo can ban a long-standing contributor without explanation? And anyway, if my outline is inadequate, please suggest changes. ] (]) 06:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Over-simplification, Everyking. 9 month almost non-stop history of this on-wiki and off, block logs on 3-4 accounts for the same thing, recent posts about "this means war", recent comparison to the holocaust, recent and past threats, significant gaming of AGF (enough to get unblocked each time, and then almost immediately resume), repeated warnings to stop by many different admins. (And the compliments cited actually came only 6 hours after being compared yet again to Stalin's First Murderer.) ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	For what it is worth, the user in question has indicated elsewhere that he is not requesting an unblock. In the interests of allowing some breathing space for everyone, I suggest that this moots much of the discussion here on the merits of the block, particularly as the user in question is not able to comment on-wiki on the matter.
	He has also pointed out a related issue, which is that a prior block placed when his account was registered under his real name, became something "that colleagues could see," presumably referring to a search engine result. It is questionable whether userspace should appear in searches at all (compare generally, ]), but it is submitted that in any case, a "NOINDEX" key should immediately be placed in the various indefblock templates, as there is certainly no need for these to be searchable and if anything, this complicates the ability for a banned user to walk away from Misplaced Pages as well as potentially creating real-world complications for the user. ] (]) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Has been since July 30th, ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Thank you. Good change (not sure if it's been made in all of the affected templates, though). ] (]) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Fairly certain Krimpet hit all the templates, it's used on <s>30,000+</s> 46,000+ pages at this point, so it would need to be a very obscure and almost never used template to not have been covered. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*In short, no. An indef block was a long time in coming for that guy. He made 900 mainspace edits on that account and the instant someone screwed up (Stifle) he wanted nothing less than his head. When he didn't get it, he left in a huff talking about mailing donors and book burners and witch hunters and what not. Later, he seemed to come to his senses and accepted Stifle's apology to the community. However no sign in that whole process was given that Peter Damien (I'm going to go ahead and say that's probably not his real name) would behave any differently were he "crossed" again. He argued ceaselessly and tendentiously, even against neutral editors and he generally made a nuisance of himself. I say good riddance. As for the method...I think we need to just '''deal'''. Jimbo is here. He's not going to leave because we get upset when he intervenes. He's not always going to be right when he intervenes but we can't really do anything about that. Consider it a perk of putting years of effort into something that we all love and enjoy. And it isn't extreme in any sense. He isn't ], for god's sake. He hasn't purged hundreds of editors or put people in camps. And honestly the last thing I want to be part of is a community protest to overturn a block for someone that abrasive. All we will get is an editor who was brought back through the sweat and tears of the community who will have nothing but bad things to say about us for it. And every admin who thinks about blocking him for going on about how the place is a "craphole" or how we are all book burners will be stepping on eggshells from the moment they see the block log. ] (]) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	So... what we do or say on OTHER websites will cause us to be banned here? Oh geez now thats interesting. ] (]) 07:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:And don't bother trying to apologize, either! ] (]) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Deletion skirmishes over Kashmir ==
	Right now, there's so much irregularities going on at ] that I want to bring this discussion to the general attention of the administrators. I am not going to provide any examples as interested admins may inform themselves by looking at this page (and its history). __] (]) 10:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I (who myself is an active party in the debate) would say that there are problems on two fronts. On one hand {{user|Nangparbat}}, who represents a pro-Pakistani POV in the debate, is constantly disrupting the discussion through various IP number edits. On the other hand, there are canvassing and sockpuppeting cases amongst pro-Indian POV editors. My suggestion is that a the AfD be semiprotected to weed out Nangparbat and the socks from the discussion. --] (]) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:] has already been blocked for sockpuppetry and canvassing. ] is a PoV fork of ]. ] has been heavily votestacked towards a keep, but as a content fork the article should either be deleted or merged. ] (]) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ] (]) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I support Soman. What we need are constructive inputs and it's being hampered by Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani elements. Please semi-protect. Thanks. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">]]</span> 12:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::No protection necessary, the socks are transparent. It may have been votestacked, but there does appeear to be a legitimate difference between Pakistan-''administered'' Kashmir and Pakistan-''occupied'' Kashmir, the latter consisting of five territories while the former consists of only two. They both seem to have sources, perhaps the solution is to attempt to gut both articles to get rid of POV? ]''']''' 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::But the constant disruptions of the dynamic IP user makes the whole debate extremly difficult to read in a sensible way. Nangparbat (the dynamic anon IP user) constantly issues uncivil comments, and many other participants in the AfD are quick to respond. Thus the core issues of the AfD gets sidelined in the discussion. --] (]) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::This is an interesting aspect, and I wonder if any administrators who have experience in such cases can outline how they deal with discussions that are so entangled that it's almost impossible to attain a clear impression of what is significant and what are elaborate distractions. __] (]) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Improper protection of a ]ed article ==
	{{Resolved|semi protection had nothing to do with PROD removal;the contesting of the prod by the anon had been accepted - the article is at AfD. ] ] 06:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}}
	The article ] is currently up for PROD. After an anon had repeatedly removed the PROD tag, including with the summary "please keep" (contesting the deletion), {{ul|Daniel Case}} protected the article with a summary which clearly indicates his awareness of the anon removing the PROD tag. As it seems from ] that anons are allowed to contest PRODs, and this anon was clearly trying to do so, I think the page should be unprotected, and the PROD tag removed as a contested PROD. ] ] 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:] indicates clearly, that removing the PROD-tag needs to be done with a statement, as to '''why''' the PROD is contested. As the PROD will go on until Sept. 11, you should notify the IP of that and once he/she explained the reasoning, the PROD tag may be removed and the article unprotected. Just removing tags is considered vandalism and may lead to protection of articles. I would suggest though that if you disagree with the PROD, that you open a ]-discussion to determine the fate of the article. Regards ''']]''' 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::] does not require a reason to be given, nor does the instructions on the tag itself. ] says you ''should'' leave a reason and the tag says that "it helps." ] also says: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{tl|prod}} tag from an article for any reason, '''do not put it back''', except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article)." That's obviously not the case here. Not should the PROD tag not have been re-added, but semi-protecting the page to force the anon out of a content dispute is a blatant violation of the protection policy. What the hell happened to ]? <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Completely agree with Z-man. The contested PROD should be taken to AfD. ]''']''' 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I protected the article, along with some others, because the anon who had already been blocked and whose unblock I denied, had already . As we usually do in such cases, I protected the pages he had been targeting as well as extending the block.<p>Yes, the contested prod should go to AfD, but I was giving the original tagger the opportunity to do so as it's really his nom to make. Since he has not done so, I will. ] (]) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::It appears it is ]. ] (]) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Why was he blocked? was definitely vandalism, but he stopped after that, and tried to improve ] in a noobish way. For that, he was reverted by a bot. --] 07:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Fuller response with relevant diffs===
	I did not protect the page for any reason connected to the PROD.
	* First, the anon, by someone else, had . I , since he had it was his intention to edit-war. He responded to the decline by .
	* So, as we usually do in such circumstances, I decided to protect the pages he had been editing disruptively, rather than leave some other admin the headache of possibly having to rangeblock. There were three, of which ] was one. The possible deletion of the article was not an issue to me; the PROD tagger is supposed to start the AFD if the tag is removed, instead of just reverting it back. In addition, I do not believe from his edits above that he would have participated in an AfD. Therefore, the protections were an overall response to his disruptive editing and threats, not an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute in which I was not a participant at the time. ] (]) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Sceptre block evasion ==
	Per a private request, I ran a CheckUser enquiry into the edits of {{user|Z388}} and a possible relationship to Sceptre. This relationship is {{confirmed}}. I do not have any doubt at all about the link between the two. The check also revealed that the following accounts are also sockpuppets of Sceptre:
	*{{user|TUATW}}
	*{{user|Gridlocked Caravans}}
	I have blocked all of these as abusive sockpuppets -- although there does not appear to be anything wrong with their edits in themselves, this is block evasion.
	Moreschi recently changed Sceptre's indefinite block to one of two months' duration () as a "final chance". Given the above findings, this probably needs reconsideration.
	] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:So in effect, Sceptre is basically banned, not just blocked? <big>]</big> 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::If it wasn't considered a community ban, it probably should be. The block should go back to indefinite IMHO. —] (]) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm moving it back to an indefinite ban. Evading blocks and bans is a no-no.--] (]) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::May I ask: what is the difference between a block and a ban? <big>]</big> 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::A block is directed against an account, a ban against the person. A block is a purely technical matter, a ban is a somewhat esoteric social construct (which is enforced e.g. through blocks). See ]. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Ermm No, a block is against the person also, it would be pretty pointless otherwise. You've been disruptive so we'll block this account, feel free to continue with another account... See ] your definition of being against the account would make this pointless as it would be impossible to evade a block just directed against an account. --] (]) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::So basically there's no difference? <big>]</big> 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: The ban is the social construct, blocks one mechanism for enforcement of a ban (though blocks will be used other than for ban enforcement), see ]. --] (]) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::So if you evade a block, you get punished for the same reason as evading a ban? They sound basically the same to me, except a block is the technical part of it and the ban is the part that says that person can't edit. <big>]</big> 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Personally, I'd be inclined to simply reset the clock. Scepte is an annoying immature individual but they do make good edits when they have a mind. Indef and permaban seems a little kneejerk right now but given our history I'm not going to fight in the trenches for him. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Agreed. ] ] 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Sceptre was on an indefinite ban for harrasment, so resetting the clock brings us back there, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Also, an administrator who understands the autoblocker will want to review the block.--] (]) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::At least one of those "harassed" (I would have called it childish name-calling, myself) put it down to childish behaviour and asked for an unblock. Something those who were here for the original discussions might remember. The block log entries rarely tell the whole story. ] (]) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	For the record, I endorse the stated relationships (among Sceptre, Z388, TUATW, and Gridlocked Caravans) as {{confirmed}}, I ran checks myself. At the very least I think a reset to restart the 2 month clock is justified. I leave the rest to the community's discretion, for now. Oh, and thanks again to Risker for some spadework in this matter, and to the WR poster who first spotted the possible connection. ++]: ]/] 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Can someone clarify what "stated relationships" means, and what the checkuser confirms, for those of us who have never filed a RFCU and have no idea what that entails? <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Sam said the other accounts were "sockpuppets of Sceptre". That's the stated relationship. I ran similar checks to what Sam ran, and my interpretation of the results is that they indeed confirm the relationship Sam stated. (i.e. that Sceptre was the controlling account). I hope that clarifies matters. ++]: ]/] 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Not really. I'm talking more about the technical details- how the stated relationship was established, what the evidence was. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I would have thought that you already knew that a checkuser isn't going to tell you that. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Correct. I'm surprised that a user who has been around as long as David has would even ask, actually. ++]: ]/] 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I guess I just haven't been in many drama-fests in my time. So how are these socks proven then? <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Er, that's the same question. There are a number of ways of telling, but a CU isn't going to tell you which one was used in this case. <b>]</b> 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Augh! (head hurts) I must not be making myself clear... what exactly does the checkuser action spit out and how do we determine the likelihood of socks based on it? <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Basically? Checkuser can reveal IP range similarities and suspicious timing. That combined with shared interest, tone, and other suspicious activity can reveal a series of logins to be the same person.--] (]) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: There is other technical information that CU can pick up as well. <b>]</b> 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - I support resetting the block to 2 months. Sometimes long-time contributors who end up with a block like this don't have the patience to sit it out. A few resets should be used to get the message home before moving to indefinite. And with respect to ] (who I am not familiar with), they have recently returned from a two-and-a-half year hiatus. An edit on 8 February 2006 was followed by an edit on 4 September 2008. I can see from ] that Tznkai has recently been reaccepted as an ArbCom Clerk, but I would reiterate what has been said elsewhere: it is best to ease back in gently. At the very least, reading the threads around the Sceptre block should be done, and not just going by what is stated in the block logs. For the record, Tznkai has said ''"I am unfamiliar with the details"''. ] (]) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I would also support a reset. Sceptre is a valuable content contributor, and I think this block may just have been a clear note to him to shape up. The socks' contribs were not abusive, as has been pointed out. ]''']''' 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	I definitely support an indef block now. It's pretty clear cut that his final chance is gone, no need to AGF anymore. ] 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Quick note: it turns out the relationship between two of them is . I've also blocked sleeper sock {{user|Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin}}. —] (]) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:And you'll notice that these socks are not new. Sceptre has been dropping sleeper socks for quite some time now... —] (]) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::In his favour, there is no evidence that he was editing abusively and I see nothing from Moreschi to Sceptre saying this was a final chance. ] ] 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Moreschi's entry in the block log says "final chance". I'm hoping Moreschi also left a note on Sceptre's talk page, as not everyone reads block logs for messages like that. ] (]) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::He didn't. ] ] 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Hmm. That's not good, is it? Setting up sleeper socks, while still in good standing, for later use? That is troubling. But I'd still give him a few resets. At the very least, this thread might shock him into realising that if he continues this way, he is very close to a ban. ] (]) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Meh, I oppose a reset. Sceptre knew what he was doing, I'm tired of giving people chance after chance when they blatantly take advantage of it. ] 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I have no objections to anyone changing my block action, but I will note that block evasion to me justifies not only reset, but escalation to the next interval.--] (]) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::We should give him a second chance now so that we can give him a second chance later (not really). —] (]) 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::What if, in three months, Sceptre turned up all apologetic, saying he has stopped using sockpuppets, promising not to use sockpuppets again, and asking for an unblock? That is probably what the two-month block was meant to do. People who use sockpuppets to make constructive edits are more likely unable to disengage, rather than abusive. Setting up multiple sockpuppets is more worrying, but it was done so naively I'm almost tempted to say people should look further and see whether this is a smokescreen for something else? ] (]) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Like what? ''']''' 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I wouldn't like to speculate. I would hope that the checkusers have picked everything up. ] (]) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Just out of curiosity, what should be made of ? An at least one of these points to redlinked cat.
	::: I did a quick look at the live links where they exist, and they, by and large, look unrelated to this, but... - ] (]) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I think Sceptre has been working at ]. The accounts created in May and earlier are likely his, though. – ] ] 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	=== Suggestion ===
	I am actually quite opposed to a reset as well, but as a compromise - reset now, and make it clear that any more block-evasion will result in an indef. Fair? <b>]</b> 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:how about resetting to three months with further evasion leading to indefnite? ] (]) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: I'd be fine with that as well. <b>]</b> 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I support this. ''']''' 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yep, 3 months is ok. ] (]) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:See also and replies to it. WR is not a substitute for WP dispute resolution (nor should we negotiate or whatever there) but the information may be useful. I think someone should undo the redirect of his talk -> user so any conversation that Sceptre chooses to initiate there could flow unimpededly. ++]: ]/] 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::{{done}} ] (]) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Questions: where is the best place to leave the message that this really is the final chance? It should be put in the block log for future admins to see. It should also be placed at ] (which as Lar says should be un-redirected). Is his e-mail address still enabled? To what lengths should people go to ensure that the message has got across? ] (]) 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I've been chatting with him, I can relay the "ultimatum" if necessary. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::He he already knows. —] (]) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::WR shouldn't be used instead of talk pages, either. Some on-wiki statement from him (on his talk page) would be nice, but unlikely I suppose. Anyway, let's leave this to develop a bit more and see what consensus emerges. ] (]) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I think spectre should be brought into this conversation, on wiki. I personally '''refuse''' to take care of administrative business on an off site forum--] (]) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree. I'm willing to dialog with people but will make no official representations of how I will or won't act, nor will I claim any sort of agreement has any standing. Here is where we do our own business. Not on WR, not on IRC, not on sekrit mailing lists. ++]: ]/] 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm probably going to pulled into real life at any moment, so I'm going to go on record with something so there is no confusion. I am '''endorsing a reversal of my block of Sceptre''' by any administrator (upon some decision being reached).--] (]) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree that going to a block of three months, with the explicit warning that this will be his last chance, is the best idea. He has made positive contributions, which I think could continue to do if he were so inclined. Hopefully three months distance from the project will help him regain the perspective necessary to edit in a more constantly productive way. ]] 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::He has stated in email correspondence that he is amenable to three months as the upper limit. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Perhaps you could relay to him that he doesn't get to "be amenable" to anything. That sounds very much like "anything more than three months and I'll start socking again". <b>]</b> 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Amenable may have been David's choice of words, who knows. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	I've a problem with Sceptre's user page being deleted. Is he invoking ] or something? Since when do blocked puppeteers get to request that their user pages be deleted? —] (]) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I don't really agree with that, either. I've long held that userpage and user talk ''deletions'', as opposed to courtesy ''blankings'', should be reserved for RTV situations. David, would you consider reversing your deletion and restoring the history? — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I have more of a problem with Sceptre calling ] a stalker. See his talk page (transcluded below). But I'm going to be charitable and put that down to residual anger. I would hope that, three months down the line, Sceptre might not do that sort of thing, or, if he has genuine concerns, to learn the right way to state them. ] (]) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I support the extension to 3 months. I would also strongly encourage offering Sceptre a one-time-only no-penalty opportunity to provide the names of any other alternate accounts to one of the checkusers involved in this case, either Sam Korn or Lar, with the understanding that any further use of alternate accounts '''at any time in the future''' will result in immediate indefinite blocking. ] (]) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	BTW, if you're waiting for an apology from Sceptre, don't hold your breath. He's too busy . —] (]) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Just ].--] (]) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Sceptre's talk page===
	<small> Transcluding ] here. Please copy in text when discussion finished. ] (]) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC) </small>
	:<small>I've done so now. It was serving no purpose. —] (]) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) </small>
	I am reading AN, and yes, Black Kite's original proposal (two months and final chance) is okay, and I'd be willing to settle for three months. Anything longer is frankly insulting, and would result in me never editing again (although the chance is very low right now). Once this matter is finished, I would like an admin to move this page to ], revert to , and delete the redirect made. Don't feed the ] ] any more than you have to. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Endorsing both the two month and three month blocks (either or), but I recommend in the strongest terms that sceptre keeps this talk page available.--] (]) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::After this is done, I'm not going to edit for at least two months - that includes replying on my talk. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Re Carcharoth: ArbCom have evidence of Kurt's off-wiki harassment which they've chosen to ignore. Hence my post to my userpage about Misplaced Pages having no standards: I get blocked for harassment for something that isn't, but a proven harasser has done so, and continues to do so, but people won't act on it because blocking him would be "censorship". ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Re Risker: The accounts I've set up are in my creation log and those checkusered. I can't recall any others. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I don't see why I'm even bothering - I'm getting totally demonised in the AN discussion. You have my word I will not edit until at least November 7, probably until December 7 (dependent on whether the block is two or three months long). And Wknight, if you can get that from my naivety, imagine what ED could do. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Sure, but cut people a bit of slack as well. By evading your block by using socks, you have abused people's trust. For them to accept your word now is difficult. The best way to re-earn that trust is to accept a three month block and stick to it. It is easily possible to spend the time reading and gathering sources and writing content offline. You might feel you shouldn't have to do that, but that is one option. You could also take a complete break - it really does help sometimes. ] (]) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::That's true. Still, I can't "double-promise" something. That's all you can have; my word. If you want to enforce it, hardblock my IP for three months. That way, you know I won't edit. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::As I'm sure you're aware, blocking an IP address doesn't block someone from editing Misplaced Pages. There's no need for anyone to rely on trust here. It'd be more straightforward for you to ask in December for your block to be lifted based on proof that you hadn't evaded it. ]] ] 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::There is an implication that he is being asked to rely on the community to allow him to edit again if he requests it in three months. Why not just reset him for that period? Then he knows where he is and everybody moves on. There is no concensus for an indefifinite irrevocable block. ] ] 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::No block is irrevocable. Sceptre may ask for his to be lifted at any time. I suggest December but he could ask sooner or later. However he is asking us to trust him to not sock puppet in the interval, while I'm saying that trust isn't necessary if he simply exhibits good behavior. Do you think think he can't go until December without using socks? ]] ] 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::No idea. But AGF is more likely to result in good behaviour IMHO. It is an aspect of courtesy and respect to which everyone is entitled. ] ] 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I have inferred (note: this means he did '''not''' say this, but that I picked it up) from talking to Sceptre that he has only used sockpuppets while blocked; this ], ]. &mdash; ] 00:17 ], ] (UTC)
	:::::::::::::(comment from the sidelines...)
	:::::::::::::I don't think that looks at the issue that generated the ire. The nub is that, by what has been presented, the socks were used to ''avoid the block''. ''If'' (''big'' if here) the inference is sound, all it does is reinforce the thought that the socks were explicitly for use when he "got caught and sanctioned" to ''avoid'' the sanction. That smacks of "The rules don't apply to me". It also does not engender faith and undermines what faith was there to begin with. - ] (]) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	===It's nice to see that double standards are alive and well===
	If this was an ordinary user that no one knew, they'd be blocked indef, no questions asked. ] (]) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Yes, I do have sympathy for that view. However, we also have numerous previous examples of blocks being lengthened for sock-puppeting block evasion, both with "high profile" editors and others that "no one knew" as well. <b>]</b> 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Sceptre is not an ordinary editor that no one knows. Plain and simple. ]''']''' 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++]: ]/] 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Where are people arguing that we don't have different standards for established users who have been with the project for a long time? I thought this was a well-known fact. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Jtrainor, if it was a user that no one knew, and had gotten indef blocked, I would go to bat for them if I became aware of their unblock request. Many users here know that I make such unblock requests on behalf of the lesser known. So, no, I don't see it as a double standard. -- ] 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	===(Not) resetting block to 3 months===
	Unless anyone else has any major objections, and Sceptre is aware that any more socking will lead to an indefinite block, I am going to reset Sceptre's block to 3 months shortly. <b>]</b> 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Please don't. I see no consensus for anything, except possibly for a ban at this point. --] (]) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm endorsing the 3 month--] (]) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I object too, and would rather support an indefinite block at this point. As much as I want to AGF, Sceptre has been given so many chances to reform yet has continued to be erratic and a net drain on the project. Jimmy Wales himself said in 2006, in ] where Sceptre was harassing an underage female admin, "'''If he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from wikipedia *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself.'''" He has done many more "things" since - I think the project has had enough. :/ '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. ] 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Nope. Indef is totally appropriate at this point. Per Krimpet, etc. —] (]) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''OK'''. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. <b>]</b> 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I object also. How many chances do we give him? He was indef blocked and then his block was reduced as a last chance. He has now used that last chance and still is unrepentant about why he was originally blocked. Why keep wasting our time? ] (]) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm not positive, but I believe his last chance was given AFTER the sock edits but BEFORE they were discovered.--] (]) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Huh? The was created and edited within the last few days. The sock that created that sock also edited on September 1. Sceptre's block log clearly says Moreschi's "Final chance" was in August. Which last chance were you referring to? —] (]) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not defending his drama-mongering or his mistakes, but some points. First off, what Jimbo says should not be any reason to conduct our affairs in dealing with users in any different way. We're the community; we decide. Secondly, I disagree with the assertion Sceptre is a "net drain"; he's nominated five successful AfDs and has been an extremely positive asset to Doctor Who. What I've urged everyone to do (and no one has listened) is to try and come to common ground on editors clearly intent on improving Misplaced Pages but who have caused drama in doing so (Sceptre, Giano, et al). This isn't just one editor, it's an offshoot of a continuing issue. I'm just hoping that we can address this so we don't waste our times in threads like these over each individual user. Also note per above Sceptre has good reason to want his talk and user page salted, as the trolls at Encyclopedia Dramatica already have a sizeable article on him and its unethical to provide them more ammunition. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::First, let's not compare Sceptre to Giano. Giano has pointed out what he - and quite a few others - feel are injustices. If he wasn't so dramatic and biting in his choice of language, he'd get a lot more official support. Sceptre is turning out to be a vandal, a harasser, and an abusive block evading sockpuppeteer. No comparison. It's only now that he's been unmasked. Next, what good is there in deleting his user page? It's just a sockpuppeteer tag that helps the community here understand what happened. What information is contained there for ED? —] (]) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::(ec) That's interesting timing. I believe the "last chance" comment was placed at the end of a block log. I haven't seen any evidence that Sceptre was given the courtesy of being informed on his talk page that this was his last chance. I also don't think dredging up things from 2006 is completely fair, nor is appealing to Jimbo's authority. As can be seen above, Jimbo is quite capable of stepping in when he wants to. What I really want to see here is an acknowledgment from Sceptre that he really is going to step away from Misplaced Pages for a few months (it can be done, and I believe Sceptre has stated this), and then Sceptre make a statement after those three months in the form of a block appeal. This gives people here a chance to calm down as well. In principle, I think all indefinite or long-term blocks should be reviewed a few months later, merely because people may change opinions they expressed in the heat of the moment. Maybe what I'm arguing for is to leave indefinitely blocked, and to revisit it in three months time? People may feel differently then. ] (]) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The first thing I'm looking for is a slight hint of repentance. —] (]) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You may not get that now, but you might in a few months. Would you be prepared to wait a few months to get a hint of repentence? ] (]) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse a reset'''. Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even ''near'' bannable. The socks weren't abused. Normally, only the socks are blocked due to block evasion. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:* If the socks are productive, the master account is not blocked, and there's no abusive sockpuppetry, then you'd usually be right. When the master account is <i>already</i> blocked though, that's block evasion as well. <b>]</b> 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::*And evading a two-month block before even a few days are gone is a very bad sign. —] (]) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Two notes: 1 I believe I understand why sceptre wants his user page space to be deleted, and he has legitimate concerns for trolling, harassment, and other distress. 2. I propose that if Sceptre posts an apology for evading via sockpuppet, we move to a three month ban, courtesy blank his talk page with a block notice and sock notice hidden a layer deep, delete his user page, and move on with life.--] (]) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Disagree on both counts. His user page has a single edit in it. There is no information there. I didn't undelete the entire history of it. It's just a pointer with information that trolls already have anyway. Next, the blocks and past threats from Jimbo were all based on a common thread of immaturity and sneakiness. Those don't go away in three months. Three ''years'' maybe, but definitely not three months. —] (]) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If what you say is true, then ban him again in three months. It takes twenty seconds.--] (]) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The one problem with that is the possible damage an unrepentent sockpupeteer might do. I'm not convinced though that Sceptre would do such damage. ] (]) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::(ec) Wasn't the comment from Jimbo two years ago? But the real point here is that consensus ''is'' slowly moving towards a ban, and I think Sceptre is beginning to realise that. Why push for a ban immediately? If Sceptre reforms, that's a good result. If he doesn't, more people will support an indefinite block. If that's what you want, you'll get that eventually, but you don't have to get that immediately. A later indefinite block with firmer consensus is better than one now with opinion divided. ] (]) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Endorse 3 month block but firmly opposed to making him grovel to get it. Shorten the block and indef him next time. He is annoying and immature but produces featured content is is a long term contributor. We really need to look for rehabilitation rather then restitution here. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I endorse restarting the 2 month clock. Firmly opposed to seeking to get him to grovel. The original indef blok was way over the top. ] ] 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd endorse resetting the two month clock, but tacking on a third month seems punitive. For somebody like Sceptre, who lives and breathes Misplaced Pages, two months is long enough (if he can actually bring himself not to continue socking). I think a reset of the two month clock is a good warning shot, and if he's caught socking again, he should be met with an indefinite block and a discussion regarding a community ban. - ] ] 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	In case anyone doubted the elusiveness, a WR user noticed - and not recently but four months ago. I'm actually embarrassed for him at this point. —] (]) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Consensus seem to have moved towards a 3 months block and away from an indef at this time. I'll change it round in a couple of hours unless there are further sustained objections. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	**It has? I only see a couple people who do so. You, Neil, Auburnpilot, Kittybrewster, and Edokter, since Krimpet's post. I don't see any consensus to change anything in any direction, be it towards a ban, or towards a 3 month block. ]] ] 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	***I have as well, as well as other endorsement on sceptre's talk page, and on the suggestions subsection of this topic.--] (]) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	**Endorse a three month block. There's no reason to expect a "full, frank apology" or anything like that. If Sceptre chooses to provide one, great, but it should not be a condition. ] ] 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::* I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	* I am in agreement with Edokter's statement "Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable." This is a spat, not a long term behaviour problem, and we're dealing with a 17 year old who is impulsive but not particularly mean spirited - I've dealt with way worse and can't even get them a 24 hour block, so I think an indefinite ban is absolutely ridiculous. Certainly the stuff he has done merits some attention in the form of a block, but it should be finite, and clear, and given his solid contribution to the project overall, unconditional (I see I'm agreeing with Neil on the latter point). ] 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	**I'd argue with you on the mean-spiritedness of - towards Kmweber as well as homosexuals and the mentally handicapped. I'm supporting a finite block as well but let's not water down the transgression ''too'' much. —] (]) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Consensus Estimate===
	This is my attempt at seeing of the people who have commented here, who thinks what. Feel free to correct. --] (]) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*This like consensus to chortern the block but I have not enacted this to allow for further comment and discussion. there is no deadline. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Perhaps more definitively, it looks like a lack of consensus to maintain the indefinite ban. To avoid a wheel war, I can enact whatever remedy is required.--] (]) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yep, sounds good. Throw in a trout slap for talking to his own sleeper sock and I'm good with either two- or three-month. —] (]) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::In my judgement, we have something resembling a consensus for the following:
	::::*rescind the indefinite ban on Sceptre
	::::*block for 3 months (starting two days ago, so 89 days or so), pending further discussion on the 2/3 month issue.
	::::We don't have as clear of a consensus, but I would like to do the following
	::::*put a note detailing Sceptre's block for sock abuse, and its length
	::::*courtesy blank that same page (there will be a note about this in the blocking log as well.)
	::::*Speedy delete ] per user request
	::::Concerns?--] (]) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I intend to recind the ban in the morning. First sleep.--] (]) 04:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	====Rescind indefinite ban====
	*tznkai - Open to Two month or three month ban(Note: Blocking admin for most recent block)
	*Carcharoth - Supports two month block, open to three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
	*Naerii - Supports three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
	*Philknight - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
	*User J - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
	*Kitty brewster - supports three month block, supports two month block
	*Edoker
	*Spartaz - supports 3 month block, "opposed to seeking to get him to grovel"
	*auburn pilot - supports 2 month block, does not support 3 month block, further evasion causes indefinite, consider community ban
	*Niel - supports 3 month block
	*Risker - supports 3 month block
	*Wknight - Supports 3 month block
	*GRBerry - Either a reset 2 month or preferrably a 3 month. Low tolerance for further evasion. ] 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*GlassCobra - 3 month block, low tolerance for further evasion. Indef block inappropriate, socks were not abusively used. ]''']''' 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Black Kite - 3 month block, NO tolerance for further evasion. Ensure static IP hardblocked. <b>]</b> 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Orderinchaos - 2 month block, would support 3 month as second option, indef block inappropriate. Agree with most or all of the comments in "other" section below. ] 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*2 months reset <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Everyking - I'm uncomfortable with a block for an extended period given Sceptre's history of contributions and productive work even while socking. Certainly I oppose an indefinite ban, and I think even two months is too long. ] (]) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*InkSplotch - Support a fixed length (2-3 months), but I'm often uncomfortable with "indefinite until they indicate &lt;whatever&gt;", especially since I'm not sure I see consensus on how severe the initial block should have been. --] (]) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Seraphim Whipp - Reset two month block. I do feel there needs to be a clear message that abusive behaviour or disruptive/POINTy behaviour that wastes the community's time is not tolerated though. ]] 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*hmwith - Support 3 month block & discuss the reaction to future evasion at a later date. Hopefully, we will not need to do so. '''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>''' 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I support no block as a first choice, and two month as a second choice. -- ] 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Me. Just unblock and be done with, this is all silly. He knows what'll happen if he plays up again. 2 months/whatever is a second choice, obviously. ] (]) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*IMHO review in a month, time off for good behavior...] (]) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	====Maintain indefinite ban====
	*Krimpet
	*<s>Wknight - Waiting for an apology/ some sign of repentance</s>
	*KnightLago
	====Other====
	*"For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
	*"Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
	*"I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
	<s>*"OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite "</s>
	*"I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)"
	=== Suggestion ===
	The usual result of serial block evasion is an indefinite block. I suggest that if Sceptre has not evaded this block after three months he be encouraged to request an unblock, but that no expiry date be set on the block of his account - that is, it will not automatically expire, it would require an active review after a reasonable period. I think this is fair, given his past contributions to the project combined with his present disruptive activity. I would also suggest that those who consider him friends on Misplaced Pages, contact him privately and counsel him to abide by the block and come back refreshed after a nice Wikibreak. If voting were not evil I would set up a notavote on it right now, but anyway, that's what I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I would agree, but I would submit that sceptre is more likely to be receptive to a 3 month block, especially since there is a small but growing consensus among some of the people commenting here that the original indef and final warnings may have been over the top. In the mean time, do you object to a 3Month pending further discussion?--] (]) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::The consensus seems pretty clear for a stated block length of two to three months, and Sceptre himself has signed on to that. Accordingly, the proper action is quite clear. To those who support a ban, a ban, even more than an indef block, invites evasion. And thus we have more time wasted detecting it, enforcing the block or ban, etc. I was indef blocked for a few days, it was a fascinating experience. Dark thoughts; fortunately, I had sense enough not to act on them, but I know the tricks, from watching a master at it, I ''could have.'' We should be careful about turning bright editors into vandals and enemies of the project; rather, we need to find ways to guide them -- and to accept or work with what is legitimate about whatever it was they were pushing that led to the problem in the first place, usually there is some good faith motive there, even if badly misapplied.
	::Meanwhile, it would be my hope that users who have good communication with Sceptre keep in touch with him, and support him, and whatever is useful and helpful of his agenda. It's not meat puppetry if it's careful, and if the editor takes personal responsibility for it. --] (]) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Actually it is meatpuppetry and would only make matters worse. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Why does it matter what Sceptre is receptive to? Being blocked is not something that he is required to agree about. ] (]) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== changes to the templates for Birth/Date age - Still unreseolved ==
	I previously wrote up this issue and it was archived without resolution so I am writing it up again. The linking for birth date and age templates has been removed which is causing the dates to not link within templates., Infobox military person for example. Although I see under the WP:Dates where someone changed the wording I cannot see where the change was determined through discussion or consensus and therefore should be corrected. If the decision is to not link dates in general fine but it should still be linked in templates such as infoboxes. Additionally,if this is the desire is to not link dates then the bots and AWB that correct dates need to be reviewed (because they are still changing date formatting) and the millions of date links on pages that currently exists needs to be removed. Until somone can show me where this has been changed based on a majority decision and not just a user thinking that its wrong then I am going to continue linking dates.--] (]) 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Ask ]. He has a page explaining where consensus was reached. See ]. Earlier thread was ]. ] (]) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Does he plan to delete all the month/day/year pages once they are completely orphaned? Seriously, what is the point of all this? — ] 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::That point did strike me as well. There must be ''some'' cases where we link to years. I suppose from calendars and timelines rather than articles? And from timelines within articles. I think the point is that linking a year is OK, but linking the date and month is pretty pointless. Though knowing all the instances when a date is mentioned in Misplaced Pages could be useful in some circumstances. But that more linking dates for the sake of using the "what links here" function. We also have "x in year" articles. Tony's argument that there is vast amounts of overlinking is valid as well, and particularly the point that unregistered readers see a mess (though I thought everyone knew that already - I think half the people that create accounts do so in order to improve their reading experience and to access the reading preferences such as 'skins'). ] (]) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Although I see Tony's point I do not agree that not linking dates at all is the answer and it seems as though he has become the defacto owner of the date formatting for wikipedia. I have reviewed his comments as well as the comments of the supporters and opposers and here are some things that I notice/concerns that I have:
	#The Opposers and the supporters all have a good point but the supporters opinions seem to be favored heavily.
	#Tony's page states that the majority support it but when you look at the vote it didn't clearly define support and the number of users who voted was relatively small.
	#There are bots and apps tat edit dates on pages that need to be modified.
	#There are millions of date links that need to be unlinked if this is kept.
	#There are hundreds of date pages that will need to be deleted if this is kept.
	#I believe that a change like this that affects so many pages and edits should have had more publicity before it was implemented.
	--] (]) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Part of the problem here is that this debate has been going on for ''years'' and has taken place in an enormous number of different places, too many to be easily linked to. In 2006 the whole thing blew up into a wheel war, see . Tony has been consistent and persuasive, and I think he's (probably) right that the significant opposing viewpoints have been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of those who have followed the debates all along. Of course, since this debate affects basically every article and (as you note) a great many templates as well, lots of people are going to notice the actual changes who were not aware of the debate, no matter how well it's publicized. But in this case, consensus of everyone whose watchlisted pages would be affected would be simply impossible (since that's all editors), and there has to be some kind of move forward at some point. Like you I see both sides here, but I also see the downside of continuing the debate for, oh I don't know, another three years. . . ] 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::In those earlier debates, was the issue of "what is the purpose of year, month and date articles", addressed, and whether such articles should ''ever'' be linked and if so from where? ] (]) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::The links to such pages are only to be removed where they serve no purpose. Where they serve a purpose they will remain. Therefore, the pages will remain, since consensus is that there is a purpose to having on this day in history pages and chronology pages. ] <small>] </small> 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Response to CharlotteWebb et al.:''' If all or even a tiny proportion of year-pages were like ], we'd be putting them up as FACs, highlighting them in ''The Signpost'' and generally being rather proud of them. But they're not like that: I recently surveyed a sample right back to pre-christian days and found them to be most unsatisfactory stubby, fragmentary lists. But even if year-pages ''were'' worthy of proper articles/lists, there's an insuperable problem: they provide information about a whole year for the whole planet, and by definition are hard to justify as links that add significantly to the understanding of a topic at hand. If there's one relevant fish in the ocean of a year-page (that is, one that is not just a stubby little collection of one-line statements, it would always be better ''in the article itself''. Year-pages are actually a great idea for something quite different: ''diversionary browsing''. While many editors work to discourage enticements to divert from our focused article through year-links, if more year-pages could be worked up into good articles, I'd be the first to promote them in their own right as worthy for a certain class of reader. There's the challenge.
	::I think for the most part I agree with the concept of what this is doing but I think that a change of this magnitude is creating a LOT of work. I also agree that many pages with linked dates have that date linked too many times unnecessarily. For me 1 link in the article and maybe one for the infobox if applicable and thats enough. But to not link dates at all to me is an extreme measure. I also agree that many of the date pages are nasty and need work but that could also be said of the articles themselves. I think one way to fix this might be to setup a project to start reviewing these date pages and if there aren't many items on the dates page then we roll them up to the next level (if 19 January 1988 only has 2 items then we roll it up as a sub section under 1988). Many also need to be assessed.--] (]) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Response to the issue of autoformatting dates in templates:''' This is quite a different issue from the linking of years and other chronological items. It's simple: templates that generate dates need to (1) avoid linking them and (2) allow editors to choose between the two standard formats, US and international (some citation templates seem to like ISO, which is permitted in ref lists). This arises from major changes to long-standing practice, in MoS (main), MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT last month.] ] 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::For me the biggest problem here is that there is no standardization for the page names (some are 19 January and some are January 19) and some dates even have 2 or more pages, 1 for each format and seems to be based on who created it. I understand that dates are displayed differently in different places but if the article name is 19 January then the link should reflect that rather than an unnecessary redirect for the sake of symantics. If someone in Great Britain created the article as January 19 then those of us like me in the US should be content with that format and display it as such unless we can come to some sort of understanding that dates and articles about a date will be displayed a certain way (perhaps based on the most commonly used format). Again I am not trying to be a pain here but it appeared to me that there was no follow throw of dealing with the 2nd and 3rd level effects of abolishing the date links.--] (]) 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== STILL at it. ==
	{{Resolved|blocked. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}}
	Please refer to , above.
	This morning I left a note on blocked user ] talk page with concerns that he was continuing to edit using IP . This IP was only editing user and talk pages, but I still felt that, with 2 days left of his block, this was unnecessary (it's worth noting that another admin disagreed).
	Just now, however, I noticed another edit to Andy's user page, this time by a different IP. I checked that IP's only to discover 5 article space edits from this morning, so I left a message on Andy's talk page requesting clarification. Following another edit, this time to a template, I have <strike>indef</strike>blocked 79.73.71.54 for evading a block.
	Andy has he is using that IP. I have therefore <strike>indef</strike>blocked his other IP as well.
	Now I propose to increase Andy's original block (already his second) for this evasion. I'd like recommendations on the increase: are we going to give this clearly problematic user yet another chance, or just say goodbye? ] (]) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Wait, you ''indef''blocked two IPs? Are they static? ]]] 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::<strike>The blocks can easily be changed. I indefblocked for the very reason that the block is...indefinite. ] (]) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</strike>
	::On reflection, I've reduced the blocks on both IPs to 3 hours. That should give us enough time to discuss what to do with Andy. ] (]) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:This started with ]. Based upon that incident and the conduct since, I believe an indef block is now warranted. We have already been ''excessively'' polite and patient with this user, but there has been no improvement in their behavior or attitude. It's time to move on. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	With this editor I'm continually going back and forth between whether he's just not getting it, or deliberately trying to test others' boundaries. Even though today's IP edits from ] were innocuous (except for -- does anybody know what this is?). My suggestion would be a last warning to AB with indef ban immediately upon any further edit. At some point, ], regardless of whether the editor seems well-intentioned. ] (]/]) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	: is especially strange. ] (]/]) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Just for clarity, 5 edits from that IP today are to article space, and this user is currently blocked. ] (]) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::To clarify my comment too--sorry, yes, I think this is a definite problem. The userspace edits and bizarre comments (e.g., ) make me think he just doesn't get that he's not supposed to edit at all, under any form, during this. Maybe I'm being naive though. If the consensus is that we've given enough warning I have no problem with that too. ] (]/]) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::And to add a little more weirdness, please see latest edit by Andy in which he admits to editing article space and says he's incompetent (!??) ] (]) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I'd support a reset of the original block, per ], which seems pretty straightforward. I don't see a very good benefit/drama ratio in extending the block to indef. If I am dead wrong about this, then I think we need to consider updating ] to reflect what the community considers appropriate in such circumstances. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree, ] seems quite clear, so reset. I don't think his IP edits were 'blockable behaviour' on their own. ] (]/]) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Per WP:EVADE the block should be reset. But there's the additional question of whether these edits by this user (whose behaviour has been problematic from the outset and ''continues'' to be problematic, and who has already been indefblocked once), along with all his previous edits and the pages of discussion they've generated, should be taken as evidence that he will likely never be able to participate in the project without being disruptive. I'm inclined to believe that they should, especially since even now (at least as of his last edit) he believes that it was acceptable to use an IP to edit article space while blocked. ] (]) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Exactly right. This violation of ] is only the latest one symptom of a much larger issue. When the totality of this user's contributions are considered (and I encourage those who haven't to carefully look at each and every one), then an indef block is entirely appropriate. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Whilst I ''was'' favorable to initial attempts at making this user understand the basic rules of Misplaced Pages, it has become apparent that ] is not compatible with writing an encyclopedia. When he's not being insulting, he willfully tries to work around very explicit and very simple rules, or makes "humorous" edits. He's not here to write an encyclopedia, and has been given numerous warnings and ''a few'' last chances by patient admins.<p>I'm blocking indef; if there is another admin who feels up to setting him up for some sort of mentoring in a strict framework, feel free to take over but I would expect any ''further'' time spent on that user is time wasted. We've already collectively lost hours dealing with someone who behaves in very bad faith (his claims of Asperger's are particularly inane, for instance, especially as some sort of ''excuse'' for his disruptive behavior). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I fully '''endorse''' this indef block. ] (]) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I know this is resolved, but I want to add this. Aspergers does make some one unwillingly and unwantingly stubborn. But it in no way makes some one ignorant to the rules. It can cause confusion of the rules if they are vague. But saying Misplaced Pages's rules are vague is like saying Duke Nukem Forever will come out in our lifetime. It just isn't true. <b><font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#9900CC">]</font><font color="#CC00CC">]</font><font color="#FF99FF">]</font></font></b>&nbsp; 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	sock of {{UserBk|Tom Sayle}}. Big surprise. Honestly, we waste far too much time on trolls. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	Is it for checkuser? ] (]) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:* Sigh * Just when I thought this couldn't get more ridiculous.... ] (]/]) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I thought "Bjornevich", which he claimed was his real name (as well as the ridiculously long pseudo-Polish full name he used in his original sig), was too unlikely to be true, rather like McWong or Queequegson. ] (]) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yet still more believable than Ó'déłámóñtŕágñéáúxtéíxtéíŕá. ] (]) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Question regarding non admin closure of AFD ==
	Is there any issue with myself closing AFD's as no consensus or any other close other than delete? This is more of a sanity check, I want to check my thinking. ] (]) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	* ] is clear; Non-admin closures of XfDs should be limited to the following types of closures:
	:*Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period absent any contentious debate among participants.
	:*Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
	:*Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible.
	:*Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.
	* Now NAC is an essay, however I don't see many situations where it would be wrong.
	::<b>]</b> 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	*If as a non-admin you wish to close AfD's as no consensus you are free to do so. Just ignore that rather patronising essay. ] (]) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I thought Hammer was correct to reopen ] AfD. The others you did today were ok. ] (]) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, I had Hammer give it a second look on IRC, we decided that relisting it won't hurt a thing. ] (]) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Exactly. The burden of correcting a bogus keep/merge/noconsensus/wrongvenue closure is an order of magnitude less than correcting a bogus delete closure (because the latter requires admin rights and is unfortunately considered "wheel-warring" until proven innocent). — ] 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	When in doubt, non-admins should not close AfDs unless the consensus is obvious. ] 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Why? ] (]) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Because there is no desysopping to threaten them with if they screw up (duh... ]). — ] 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::They haven't gained community trust most of the time, ergo I'd be uncomfortable with them closing afds. (Plus, a lot of them have failed RfAs, which shows a lack of community trust.) ] 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Also, (not in reference to you because you're a former admin and I'm sure you'll get them right) there have been a number of cases where non-admins have closed non-obvious AfDs and got them wrong, which wastes everyones time. If there's not a horrible backlog (which there isn't at the moment), I don't see the point. <b>]</b> 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::What a ridiculous answer, closing an AfD as No consensus is no big deal. Deleting is the big deal and that is where the trust is required. ] (]) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Uh, no consensus is a big deal. That's an interpretation in and of itself, as other admins could see a case as no consensus where others see delete. ] 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Not ridiculous in the slightest. There are plenty of AfDs which appear to be "no consensus" through a simple vote-counting exercise, but which aren't for various reasons. Getting a N/C wrong and ending up with another AfD is just as timewasting as getting a Delete wrong and ending up with a DRV. <b>]</b> 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You make it sound as if judging consensus requires the wisdom of Solomon, it really really doesn't. If it did 99% of our administrators would be in deep shit. ] (]) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: No, of course it doesn't, you're right. On the other hand, I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of hordes of people trying their hand out at random AfD closing, because I've seen too many examples of people getting it wrong. <b>]</b> 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	If the outcome would be either nebulous to determine or controversial, I would be fine with a non-admin closing the debate '''if''' he conferred with an administrator or two, just to be sure of his judgement. —] <small>(])</small> 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:So long as the closing non-administrator has ] aplenty, I am happy with him or her dabbling a toe in "no consensus" deletion discussion closures. I advise an abundance of caution to be used when making these closures, however: I've seen contentious non-administrator closures result in some nasty head-biting in the past (mostly justified—non-sysop closures have been known to go poorly—and sometimes not). It's your head; you decide whether it goes on the plate or not! ] ] 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I vaguely recall that when you got into trouble as an admin it was over exercising judgement in controversial areas. I'd avise you to steer clear but, as the man said, its your head and lots of people (not me) will be watching to catch any mistakes for you. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Yeah, I see one DRV where I closed an AFD that I voted in (what was I thinking?) and one AFD that I improperly applied BLP. I learned from those, and don't intend to close any controversial AFD's. ] (]) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	=== Summary ===
	So basically what I get from the above is "Do what you think you can handle, we will let you know if you get it wrong". Is this correct? ] (]) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't think its that cut and dried. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:More like "if it has any possibility of being contentious, avoid it", I think. <b>]</b> 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Black kites works for me. ] (]) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I used to close AfD's during my downtime at work and found it incredibility frustrating. On the one hand you have users who are much too wrapped up in the outcome of a deletion discussion; once they catch wind that you are not an admin, and then it's all "rv - ''Oh no you did-n't'', you’re not even an admin!" On the other hand, you have certain admins who feel that their RfA somehow uniquely endows them with the ability to make an intelligent determination of consensus, who like to bowbeat you with ] for their own amusement. Never will anyone point to a problem with the actual close itself, only that it was a non-adminstrator who did the legwork. It’s infuriating, and in your specific case and obvious qualifications I imagine it would only be especially so.
	:::If you do decide to put up with it though, I’ve successfully closed several debates as delete. Just slap a {{tl|db-xfd}} on the target article and a sensible admin will come along to delete it eventually. ]! 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree mostly w/ Dr. Nick here. NAC's help the backlog a lot, but they can generate stress. People get REALLY caught up in the outcome and will come banging on your door if you "mess it up" (give them an outcome other than the one they were looking for). further, closing a LOT of deletion debates will make later attempts to become an admin ]. ] (]) 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Seriously though, if you're going to close as delete, make sure it's <i>really</i> uncontentious. <b>]</b> 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Take this from someone who has had 4 or 5 wrong closures (and they still come back to bite you). There are those in the community who simply do not like non admins closing these types of XfDs. After closing well over 150 XfDs I think only two were overturned as delete, and the rest were overturned and later re-kept. This will draw more attention to yourself, and others will question your judgment, regardless of how many closures were right. I agree it should come down to the proper decision and the proper knowledge, the but sometimes this is not always the case. ''']'''] 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Protection is about to expire on the above article. I've laid out suggested ground rules on the talk pages for conduct. In addition, I am recommending here that uninvolved administrators use very short (15 minutes) blocks and page protections to force users to discuss issues with each other on the talk page.--] (]) 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	: Protection on the article expires in two weeks; it's not "about to expire". <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Whoops. Downgraded the protection now anyway.--] (]) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Interesting site, I was ask to forward this to admins: http://www.blogpi.net/who-is-encouraging-obama-supporters-to-vandalize-sarah-palins-wikipedia-article . ] 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	===Administrative action review: ]===
	Tznkai appears to be using his position to POV push and support those who do. I am requesting that ] be the admin there as he seems to really have a handle on NPOV. ]. ] (]) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I'll note for the record I havn't made a single content edit to the article. I have made no ( that I can remember anyway) content suggestions on the talk page. I have warned Books repeatedly about violating 3RR, and less so, civility issues. I stand by my actions, which are available for anyone curious. --] (]) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	: @Booksnmore4you: Thread with care while you learn the ropes and please ]. You are welcome to disagree with Tznkai actions, and best would be to address your concerns directly with him in his talk page. ] <small>]</small> 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:@Tznkai: There are other people violating 3RR there, hope you look over these as well. ] <small>]</small> 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning ==
	The way I understand it, when listing out actors for a cast list, they should be placed in order of importance, or in order of the film's credit listing. ] persists in re-ordering the cast list of ] in (their own words): "To make it easy to read.Puting it in order by smallest to largest,which I'm doing right now." I've raised the issue on the user's talk page, and already reverted their edits twice, so I cannot revert again. Thoughts? ] (]) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Where did you find that at? (The way cast lists ought to be?) ] doesn't list that, nor does the ] documentation. At least, not that I can see on a cursory first pass of each. I wouldn't say you're wrong per se, but I don't see cast list order as something to push 3RR over, IMVVHO. Will the hypothetical casual Misplaced Pages reader take notice? ] 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::We really ought to have an MOS bit on that, so we can at least have consistency from one article to the next. Alpha and order of importance make sense. By length of line, not so much. ] ] 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Should I bring up this issue somewhere else, so it will be addressed in the MOS? ] (]) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Upon further review, we have ]. ] ] 06:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::You're right, it isn't in the guidelines, but that was the impression I had from interacting with other more experienced editors in the ] project, some of whom are quite particular about the order in which actors are listed. I realise it's a petty issue, but the editor has been repeatedly editing the cast list to make it fit by "length", which may be pretty to look at, but doesn't make any logical sense. ] (]) 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Anarctica: Vandalism/Hacking ==
	Can an admin please look up the Antarctica article? There is discriminatory language posted at the bottom of the page <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I took a quick skim but it's quite a long article. Could you be more specific please? ] (]/]) 03:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I've gone back a week in the history and can't find anything. There was other vandalism that was always quickly reverted. The user left a message on my talk page saying it was within the boxes at the bottom--maybe a template got vandalized somewhere. ] (]/]) 11:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Shortage of involved admins at DYK ==
	OK folks,
	DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved, and some of those who have been doing it for a while could do with a break. We are asking folks who listed themselves on ] to update details on this page - ], so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :)
	I find it a nice change of one is getting a little tired of negative interactions with vandals, POV pushers, reverters etc. so maybe the nice warm group-hug of DYK may good place to recharge.
	Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Please watch me ==
	{{resolved|Sock blocked}}
	http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hrafn#Please_read_my_recent_edits_...
	Hrafn and his buddies are about to kick me off. "His" hierarchy of consortial editors (using the same username, passwd, and /or email communications) might now kick in. I would like you to restore my good name as Doug youvan, Nukeh, and MsTopeka, as one in the same. I do not have the editorial skills or ability to do anything other than what I have already done, because I focus on content and edit in good faith. I am sorry for breaking rules, but this consortium is just to fast and well skilled in WP rules for me to do otherwise. ] (]) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please explain precisely what it is you're asking an admin to do. --] (]) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Diffs? Where has hrafn harassed you? And do you have any proof of your accusations of sharing usernames and passwords? That's a serious charge. ] (]) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Given that ] has kindly admitted to being a further sock of banned ]/], could somebody please ban 'her'. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::There he is, hrafn, and I believe ''that'' to be a consortium of editors, and a proxy of www.kcfs.org with many editors on the same username. It's possible all edits are piped through Krebs at kcfs, but I don't know anyone who could figure out how to detect such technology. I'm now in their home state, but I will not make any legal threats here. They defame my real name, Doug youvan. One has made a threat of violence. One of their goals is to control WP articles that are supportive of certain public policy positions, such as NO Intelligent Design being taught in school. ID is now a mess on WP and elsewhere, but it tracks back to the ideas of Arrhenius, one of the fathers of thermodynamics.
	:::My cv includes 8 years of teaching in 2 departments at MIT in chemistry and biology, 20 years ago. Since then, I was the CEO of a biotech company, worked in aerodynamics, cosmology, mathematics, etc. I am Hrafn's worse nightmare in a public debate because of my background in research level science in many fields. On the other hand, ''his'' goal appears to be only to influence public policy, e.g., the Kansas State School Board elections. They pervert scientific articles on WP simply to make Darwin stand and ID fall, because they believe ALL of ID is a trick to get Creation back in the schools.
	:::I broke some WP rules to catch these guys, so what do I do now? I have accumulated evidence here: http://www.childpainter.org, a master website that has links to other websites. I ask you to look at http://www.wikipediaversusthegodofabraham.org. You will also see that MsTopeka has recently tried to alert fellow WP editors to a potential IPO of WP, and has also looked into MACIDs for security reasons. These are not the efforts of the typical bad troll or socketpuppet. They are more akin to an ACLU activity with the goal of continued Freedom of Speech in a society that has lost much to the war on terror, which appears to be the delusions of a dry drunk, Prez Bush, and his money grubbing pals. Please do not lump all Christians in his bag. To do so will recreate 1935 Germany with Chrstians taking the place of Jews in the present day. Hrafn (and Godwin, a pun) would love to see that happen.] (]) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Above, I read "that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course)" on PD. If that is a method unknown to hard working, common, everyday editors, it appears we have still another problem. ] (]) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::ROFLMAO -- I think this pretty much sums 'Ms Doug' up. I've added a report on ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I have no idea what ] is. So, I ask a senior admin to defend my position. I appear to be ''pro per'' (court analogy) in Hfran v Youvan, where Hfran is highly skilled. I am a scientist, mathematician, and proponent of fair play - not a WP "attorney" like Hrafn who wins arguments in article content based on skills in admin stunts. ] (]) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Try clicking on the link, then you'll know what it means. --] (]) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Please, '''''do''''' review MsTopeka's edits. Certain words involving living under bridges come to mind. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Subbridgulation? ] (]) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Are the words defined in Webster's Underthebridge Dictionary? ] (]) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Username Blocking... ==
	What's a reasonable amount of time to wait when blocking a username to allow the user to file a request at ]? I unblocked ] after to change his name. Instead of going to CHU, he ...--]] 05:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	* I speedied the article, because it was NN. To be honest, I'd block them again but to be less ]y, leave a note explaining exactly what they need to do. <b>]</b> 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::(ec) I'd tend to reblock. If the contribution history is limited (as this one is), one might suggest the user simply open a new account with a more Misplaced Pages-friendly name. ] (]) 06:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree, I would reblock. ]] 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I would say that if the user clearly knows that the account is unblocked, and has not yet requested it within 10-15 minutes, he should be reblocked. ] ] 08:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::''At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.'' It's too soon to block. I ] this editor thinks that posting the unblock request (which contains the new username) is all they had to do. <s>I'll see if I can explain.</s> ETA I've been overtaken by events - Smashville has re-blocked (I think the WP database is a bit laggy right now). <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Yeah...I went with Gale's suggestion. Going through that process is kind of a lot of stuff for a new user whose only nondeleted edit is an unblock request. I left him open to recreate a new account and told him he was able to do it. --]] 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Recurrent IP vandalism on ] ==
	See . Suggest temporary semi-protection. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Please add this to the ] Thanks ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::{{RFPP|semi|1 month}} Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. ] ] 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Please redact the last sentence of your response. Misplaced Pages does strive for civility, and that sentence borders on the incivil. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I don't see what's uncivil about it. It was justification for me doing it here in stead of ]. ] ] 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Corvus, your tersely-worded demand for redaction is itself rather incivil (not to mention slightly bureaucratic). Hope this proves to be enlightening - ] (]) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Since when is "please" a demand? <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Need Assistance with Approving Page ==
	{{resolved|by ] posting at DRV}}
	I created the page "Bettertrades" recently, with the intention of putting up a new and useful page about something I knew and had sources for. It was speedily deleted, and I couldn't get either the deleter or the suggestor to specifically explain the issue. I edited the page even more. I have done everything I can to keep neutral POV, assert notability, and adhere to wikipedia standards. I tried requesting help from ] and ], since Coren was the deleting admin, and Jerry was the one who restored the page to my userspace. I've been trying to get some approval or editing from anyone who can help me to make sure that I make the page correctly in order to assure that it doesn't simply get deleted at a pass again.
	If no one has any opposition, I would like to move the page from my userspace at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades to the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/BetterTrades (note the uppercase "T"). I hope that my exhaustive efforts have proven useful, and that I can move forward with working on other wikipedia interests. ] (]) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker
	:You will probably get better reception by copy/pasting your paragraph here to ]. Would you like assistance in doing that? ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes, please. I had not been aware that I could have pursued it in a deletion review when I first started this. Thanks. ] (]) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker
	::::I did it. please see: ]. <font face="century gothic" color="#eeff00">''']''' </font><small>] ¤ ]</small> 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks Jerry, I got sidetracked, didn't see the request for help. :-) ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Checkusers please ==
	There is a backlog at ]. Since the worst cases of disruption often end up there, it would be good to keep response times to a minimum. Confirming sock pupptry quickly, and thoroughly, can help reduce administrative backlogs and prevent edit wars. We should be endeavor to find ''all'' the socks in a farm at once, rather than playing ] with them for weeks or months. A thorough job discourages further socking, whereas whack-a-mole encourages more of the same. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	: I'm on it, but it's going to be later today - couple of hours. RL is getting in the way of Misplaced Pages again :) - ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I regret that you will find one of the cases rather messy. There appears to be two dueling sockfarms. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::There are quite a few requests that are like that, I am hoping that once myself and FT2 get the ] up and running it will help with situations like this. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::It took me an hour to figure out, and then block and tag all the malefactors on one report. We could use more admin help at ] and ]. What's gratifying is that one of the socks had been blocked at least six times over the last nine months for edit warring. They are now on "permanent wikibreak". ] <sup>]</sup> 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Request for speedy closing of AfD ==
	{{resolved}}
	Could someone please have a look at ], with an eye to a speedy closing of the debate? It is not just the ≈100% unanimity, but the fact that the nomination was made on faulty premises. As it stands, all the deletion template does is to deface one of the most visited pages on WP. ] (]) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Closed. I don't see any point in prolonging that one. <b>]</b> 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for quick response. ] (]) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Temporary unprotection of ] ==
	I would like to request that ] is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for ]. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. ], an admin who is also in charge of ], has already said that he would see me do it - ] (]) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per ]). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">]]</font>''' 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Well that's true, but I think that was more because he suggested the sandbox because he didn't think of me asking here (I was more using the citation to demonstrate that he trusted me with it, sorry, I should have made that clearer). Franamax asked for exactly the same unprotection a couple of days ago, and had his request granted. To do the changes in a sandbox would be an absolute nightmare, as I'd have no way of testing whether they were working as I want them to, as it all involves templates adding a large number of categories. And obviously whatever I create in a sandbox wouldn't be transcluded onto lots of pages - ] (]) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::You can transclude your sandbox onto test pages to test the sandbox version. Just play around a bit with several different sandboxes and transclude them onto themselves if you want to do transclusion tests. You might end up with the sandboxes in live categories for a few minutes, but as long as you disable the transclusion quickly, that should be OK. Goodness knows there are enough user subpages in "article" categories. ] (]) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:The proper place to request edits to a template is using the {{tl|editprotected}} on the template's talk page. Most admins want specific edits, though, which is why sandbox use is encouraged. Also, playing around on the live versions of high-use templates is generally a Bad Thing{{TM}} because it fills up the work queue a lot (basically 'cuz it makes other edits take longer to show up). It also helps reduce the impact of bugs in the code. And there's ] stuff, of course. I highly recommend doing some work in a sandbox first, and making sure the edits are all kosher (bug wise). Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Hmmmmmmmmm, fine, not entirely happy but I'll give it a go - ] (]) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	This is the second time in a week a request to unprotect ah has been raised here; why aren't changes raised on proposed on the ah template talk page? ] (]) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, to be honest, I was following the lead of the first request. Sorry - ] (]) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: ah, I see :-) A request on the template talk page might be more efficient. ] (]) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::For reference on the "first request", see the archived ] which links to several threads discussing the specific problem, the ], the ] with interested/involved ] and the resulting change to the MediaWiki software at {{rev|40499}}. ] (]) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Ah, I didn't realise it was later questioned. Anyway, I'm now in the process of sandboxing - ] (]) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	Okay, I have made the changes required, I shall now bring the request to ] - ] (]) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Please review this block ==
	I've been blocked for preposterous reasons and accused of vile actions that I did not do. I placed the unblock template on my talk page but nobody seems to have seen it yet. Can someone uninvolved please review my block at ]? If necessary, e-mail me to discuss further. I'll be online sporadically the rest of the day. ] (]) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I have notified FayssalF, the blocking admin, of this discussion. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	: On the face of it, the block appears to be poorly justified, and based on a single IP edit which is claimed to be you, which you are claiming isn't. I would expect FayssalF, as an experienced user and arbitrator, to give *significantly more* justification for a 2 week block than what has been given, it took me over 10 minutes just to find out what on earth you had allegedly been blocked for. I would consider unblocking if evidence is not forthcoming, but am willing to defer to FayssalF if a much better explanation and substantiation are provided. ] 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	<s>:Well, I can't help but notice the IP address is the same ISP and location.</s> This could of course be a coincidence - it might be worthwhile asking a Checkuser to determine whether it is the same person. ] (]) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Strike, that possibly may not be the case, sorry. ] (]) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::While we are waiting, this IP is admitting to block evasion, so I've blocked it for the same length of the original block. Even an unjust block does not justify sockpuppetry to get around it. Of course, if the block on the registered account is overturned or reduced, the IP block should be reduced/removed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::FWIW, I've always thought of sockpuppetry as something done with accounts. IP editing is not socking, IMO, as there is no attempt to hide the IP address. It is natural, if an account is blocked but the IP isn't, for people to edit as an IP to ask questions about what happened (they should read the block notice, but that doesn't always happen). People who turn up as IPs asking why they were blocked should be politely told to file an unblock request on their talk page, and not be accused of block evasion and have the IP blocked. It's common courtesy, no matter if is it current practice to call this type of IP editing "block evasion". At the very least, the block template should have a message warning against editing with an IP on other pages (does it?). ] (]) 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	: I'm calling that {{confirmed}} on both IPs, per FayssalF. IP information has already been revealed above, so yes to that. Both ] and the vandalizing IP used that IP within a very short time. Other technical evidence supports this too - ] <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Just so we're absolutely clear, 75.3.120.150, and ] are both vandal socks?--] (]) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Not really a vandal. NoC used the IP to leave at ]'s userpage. He denied that althought he didn't give us any explanation why that could happen especially that he edited the same articles Einsteindonut edited. -- ] / <small>]</small> 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: Thanks for the confirmation. I don't understand that sometimes people asks us to be utterly stupid for the sake of being politically correct. This has been a clear-cut case from the beginning unless he got his connection compromised. What is odd is that his opponent, ], is claiming innocence in a similar fashion. Some other CheckUser may help review that case as well.
	::For people unfamiliar with the whole background of this mess, please have time to have a look at ]. People have spent 2 days out there. Socks are horrible. -- ] / <small>]</small> 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: Frankly he's lucky to get away with two weeks - in my opinion antisemitic remarks qualify for the "don't let the door bang you on the arse on the way out" treatment. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree and I've already this point and I'd have no problem with extending the block. -- ] / <small>]</small> 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Hm. Once again, anti-Semitic remarks (which I abhor) get treated more strongly than calls for the celebrations of the murders of 9/11. Just pointing out the consistency there. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Corvus cornix, this is the first time I'd explain my modus operandi to someone. I am glad this point is being raised and hope the community would correct me if I am wrong. So thanks for bringing it.
	::::::Well, when you block someone in a controversial situation you have to be very prudent. So it is better to start the easy way while undergoing more investigation in parallel (the thing we are doing now). In this particular situation, the user in question has been aproached by 2 other admins a couple of days ago. If you get back to the AN/I thread in question, you'd see that today I got back to him including his story on the thread. Until here, there was no evidence other than his IP being used for the anti-semite edits. So had I blocked him people would complain about not AGF (an established editor away from the I-P conflict making those nasty edits? unbelievable and you can still read a similar comment at his talkpage from another editor). However, I didn't hesitate to block him on the spot after ] brought diffs showing his direct involvment in the JIDF article. What would you do in such a situation? I know most people would have thought about an indefinite block or a long-term block at least. Same here obviously. The difference is that thinking and acting are two different things as acting 70% (even more than that) sure in a controversial situation usually prompt drama (ohhhh, indef is abusive, ohhhhh, indef is baseless, ohhhhh, he shared computers with his X, ohhhhh, you were so quick to jump, ohhhh, ahhhhh, ehhhhhhh, uhhhhhh). 2 admins hesitated to block, I didn't but that was because of the new supporting evidences brought by ]. It wasn't a simple case and the proof is the very existence of this thread.
	::::::Anyway, do you believe that I'd object an indef after a review? Go ahead, you'll have my biggest support if admins review it. Please note that I really appreciate bringing this issue and I am certainly sure of you assuming good faith though not completely sure of my neutrality. You judge it now Corvus. -- ] / <small>]</small> 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I have '''''no''''' objections to the actions that were taken here. My continued objection is to the leniency shown ]. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	As a side note, Nobody of Consequence has "retired." <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Alison, can you clarify whether NoC had edited logged-in from 75.3.147.166 both before and after the vandalism? --] (]) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Something about this doesn't strike me as right. I was looking into NoC's contrib history and among the first edits he made was . Is it possible that the explanation on his/her talk page may in fact be true? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: Before and after, yes, Random832. There was as little as ~20 minutes between login times, at one point - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::: OK, that nails it I would say, that is not compatible with his explanation. The coincidence would be altogether too unlikely. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::As little as 20 minutes? Isn't 20 minutes rather a long time, or am I missing something about what length of time means here? ] (]) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Not really. Not for ] leases, etc. To explain that, per your question below; IP addresses are farmed out from a range of IPs to our computers via a cable modem or DSL set or whatever. These generally have a fixed lease, so that if you power off your set or if you are idle for some time, the IP address you are given stays with you, sometimes for days, weeks. This is the 'lease time' for an IP. DHCP is just a protocol for farming out these IP addresses to many people across one network (like an ISP, for example). You can sometimes force an IP address change by telling the DHCP server to drop your lease to the current IP address and go get another one. Some fast-moving vandals do this. However, in the case of DHCP, it always dishes out new ones from its 'pool' of unassigned ones, and puts your old one to the back of the list for recycling later. Thus, renewing your IP over such a protocol rarely if ever results in getting "your own back", especially if it's been farmed out to some anon ''and back again'' in the meantime? See what I mean about the likelihood here? - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	I've removed the 'resolved' tag. After reading ], I think a clearer explanation of exactly what happened here is needed, even if only for those who are missing the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. A timeline and diffs would be helpful. ] (]) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, I've skimmed through ] that Fayssal mentioned above. What is the connection again? Presumably that someone reading the thread made the edit to Einsteindonut's page? How definite is the CU evidence again? IP edits either side link to intervening edits made by the account? Is the message at ] credible? Is there ''any'' way the CU evidence could be interpreted wrongly? ] (]) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: It might be an idea to get a third checkuser report, if you like. However, having DHCP drop the IP address, then an IP editor comes along and vandalizes some particularly relevant pages (even ]), '''then''' modem reboots and you get the ''same'' one back?? And that's from a reasonably wide IP range;
	PPPoX Pool se4.chcgil 041007 1222 SBC-75-3-112-0-20-0712043420 (NET-75-3-112-0-1)
	75.3.112.0 - 75.3.127.255
	::.. from the above IP address. It's a little beyond the realms, sorry. And now that I'm asked, I began to dig further. These edits came from the same IP as NoC and it was login-logout-login again. Then there's contribs, once again from NoC's IP address. Then there's and (with less than a minute after the IP finishes and NoC logs in. And , etc, etc. You get the idea. This guy logs in and out all the time to do stuff - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hang on. When you say "from NoC's IP address", you mean checkuser showed that the account was editing from those ''different'' IP addresses (but in the same range - how big is that range is absolute terms?) at the same time (or around the same time) as the edits you flag up? When most people read something like "from NoC's IP address" they will think you mean one single IP address, but I think what you are saying here is that he is on a dynamic IP (hence the talk of modem rebooting) but still within a range, and you've linked edits from the (normally masked) IP addresses he edits from to both masked (ie. logged-in as NoC) edits, and unmasked (logged-out as IP) edits? Is that right? Oh, and what does "DHCP drop the IP address" mean? ] (]) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I've also tracked down the featured article. ]. I also found out the block was two weeks. For some reason (not sure why) I thought the block was indefinite. Given that it's not indefinite, I think Guy has the right approach here (see NoC's talk page). After things have calmed down, NoC can post an unblock request (or wait out the block) and let's see what happens then. But in some ways, this should be resolved one way or the other. I'm still surprised that a productive contributor would switch between behaviours like this, which is why I was asking if there was any chance that the data could be explained another way. I realise that answering that is a bit ], but was wondering if anything more could be said. ] (]) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: The same IP each time, over different IPs. login-logout-login. Same IP, and it happened again and again. I'm having trouble connecting this to someone taking his IP address, vandalizing or whatever, then he grabs the same one back - hours or even minutes later?? - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Please, hang on. I am working on this. It seems very but very odd. I'll contact fellow arbitrators because of the nature of the findings. We'll keep you updated. I'll contact you within a few minutes Alison. -- ] / <small>]</small> 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Thanks, Fayssal. Emailed reply - ] <sup>]</sup> 04:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	Fayssal asked for confirmation of these findings on the CU list so I took a look... I concur with them. There's a patter here of user->IP->user... the user does some stuff, logs out, does some stuff as the IP, logs back in. Repeated across several different IPs in the same range. Seems pretty clear to me. ++]: ]/] 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Cid Campeador ==
	{{resolved|I will leave a warning - but I would appreciate others keeping an eye on his conduct. ] | ] 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)}}
	I am very close to considering a vandalism-only account. The problem is, many of his (?) edits are borderline. I think they are all disruptive but none of them are the kinds of obvious vandalism - nonsense or obscenities - we usually have to deal with. He will often remove information claiming it has no citation (true, but he never inserts the template asking for the citation, or takes a sec to ask anyone on the talk page for a citation); he often adds dubious information without citation. He caught my attention because he made one disruptive edit to the race article. I looked back to his earliest edits and saw a pattern of vandalism concerning Dubai (identifying it as a fascist country).
	No edit suggests to me that he is a serious editor who has any use for research or our policies, but enough of his edits are more inane than outright violation of policy that I hesitate to block him as a vandalism only account.
	I know that there is a very robust cadre of anti-vandalism editors here and would appreciate their keeping an eye on him, and if anyone else cares to go through his history of edits and comment, I would be grateful. ] | ] 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I've had a look at the last dozen or so of Cid Campeador's edits and I agree the majority of them are dubious. I'm not convinced this is a vandalism only account however. More of a POV-pusher, if anything, and I notice that nobody's contacted Cid on his talk page about his edits since last year. Considering that most of Cid's edits are fairly innocuous and undisruptive, and he only makes a handful of edits a month (too few to make a nuisance of himself), I suggest we ] and leave him be for now. If you have a problem with Cid's edits, raise the matter on his talk page. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	I can speak to him specifically about the stuff on Race, but if I were to use a generic warning, which template do you think would be most appropriate (if any)? ] | ] 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	* You could try whatever you think is closest out of the uw-unsourced, uw-npov or uw-error templates, though if he's producing a combination of all three, a written message is probably better. <b>]</b> 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Misplaced Pages:WITCHHUNT → Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct ==
	Would someone please reopen ]. It appears to have been improperly closed and I think the RfD needs a conclusion to prevent the page from migrating back to a redirect in the future. Thanks. ] (]) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Nothing wrong with a speedy close. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I think the problem is more that the creator of the redirect closed the discussion, stating he'd turned it into an essay, when it's actually just a blank page with three tags: {{tl|Underconstruction}} {{tl|essay}} and {{tl|humor}} (and it's been that way for nearly 2 days). MfD could always do the trick (add ] while you're at it). - ] ] 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Burn the witch! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, for the moment I've userfied the two incomplete ones to ] and ] .--] (]) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Troll day ==
	I missed the bulletin; in case others did too, it is clearly Troll Day here on Misplaced Pages. Enjoy. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Umm, which day isn't? ] 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Well yes, but that minimizes the beauty of this statement. The benefit of a statement like this is that I am correct, regardless of when you read it. Also, I need do no specific research whatsoever. Neat, eh? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I have an idea of how to celebrate; watch for a new user working from my ip to start correcting ] very soon. The whole article needs to better reflect The Truth, which is that she shamelessly wastes water by drowning puppies in the bathtub instead of using a toilet or a bucket. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::She does?!! Wait - I'm going to rush off and post a diary about this at dKos so you...oops, I mean the new user...can have a Reliable Source<sup>TM</sup> to use in the article. ] (]) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I though it was just me, all of the sudden bumping into trolls and socks everywhere I turn. Seriously, what in the hell is going on? — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::All the kids got back-to-school laptops? ] (]) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	] --] (]) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== PATROL! ==
	Like the good old ] would say: Encyclopedias are not just created by your own edits, it's by patrolling the beepety beep out of the other poor beepety beeps edits!
	''''''
	Everyone, hop on and do even just 10. Come on, you can do it! --] (]) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Support an immediate indefinite ban on Kim Bruning for making reasonable suggestions that make me do more work!--] (]) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: Support! That's one way to kick the habit. O:-) --] (]) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Patrol them? Or AFD them? ] (]) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Do what is appropriate, and/or then mark as patrolled. (incidentally, it's useful to reload the above link regularly, to avoid doing double work. A "show random unpatrolled page" option would be nice :-) ). --] (]) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for attempting to get others involved Kim. ''']'''] 01:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry if that sounded overly snarky. First up: thanks for the reminder. But just looking at the page I realised to my horror that half that stuff should probably be speedied, and a third of what's left send to AFD. It reminded me why I stay away from newpage patrol. ] (]) 01:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::And ''that'' is precisely why there is a backlog that reaches for almost a full MONTH (and it'd be even worse if it wasn't for the fact that pages expire from the patrollable queue after 720 hours; ] got the toolserver to produce a list of . It's eleven megs long. ] (]) 02:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Remember that many pages get checked but not marked as "patrolled". On newpage patrol, I don't care if a page is marked patrolled or not, I just go through a bunch. People who feel that marking a page as patrolled is useful may continue doing so obviously, but I don't see the benefit, as the difference in quality between one and the other isn't remarkable. Patrolled pages <> good enough articles. ] (]) 07:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::The benefit to patrolling is that it indicates "this page has already been checked by a human and does not need a fresh set of eyes to validate that it is a good article" (or, alternately, "this page has already been checked by a human who decided that it needed to be tagged for deletion"). If we have a thousand articles, and 100 volunteers, and each of them checks 10 articles... something like 650 of the articles will get checked three times, 100 will get checked twice, and the rest won't get checked at '''all'''. The patrol feature reduces duplication of effort, and shows what hasn't been done yet. ] (]) 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I strongly disagree with that contention. I run across '''''tons''''' of "articles" which have been marked as patrolled which wind up being speedy deleted due to being articles about garage bands, some teenaged girl's secret crush, some guy writing about his sexual prowess, etc. I think patrolling is more harmful than it is useful. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Not long after posting the above, I discovered . <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::And if someone is abusing the patrol feature, they get blocked. Simple. ] (]) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Corvus cornix: just because they have been marked patrolled does not mean they can not still be tagged for deletion/cleanup. I mean, that's how it was done before we had new page patrol. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Right. Marking as patrolled is not saying ''it shouldn't be taken to AfD''. It just means that the article is well enough that we didn't feel a speedy tag was the answer. And lets not forget, that one of the reasons we mark as patrolled is because there already ''is'' a speedy tag placed on it. Patrolling is not a simple task, and editors who just randomly click patrol are generally not very good patrollers. ''']'''] 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	The patrol itself is just that: A feature. A mechanism. It is not a policy. Alone and without policy a mechanism is neither good nor bad. Policy is what makes it something useful or something harmful. Paroling can be abused, like any other feature, and it's up to policy and administration to make sure it isn't. The feature shouldn't be any more prone to abuse than others: it can be limited to whom can use it, and it provides a good audit trail so you can see how it is being used and hold people accountable for misuse. I could use editing to insert nonsense into articles, but we don't turn editing off. We warn, then block, problematic editors. Patrol should be no different. Cheers. --] (]) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::So what do I do if I keep encountering nonsense articles which have been patrolled and nothing done about them other than being marked as patrolled? And ''The benefit to patrolling is that it indicates "this page has already been checked by a human and does not need a fresh set of eyes to validate that it is a good article"'' tells me that people think that once something is marked as patrolled, it's not nonsense. Well, let me tell you, that ain't true. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::AfD, cleanup, tag as a speedy (if applicable) etc. If the users who are just randomly clicking away, and not evaluating these articles, maybe you want to ask them if they know how to patrol or inform them that what they doing are is not always helping. And if that fails, tell DS. I patrol with him often, and hes usually a very strict admin when it comes to this stuff. ''']'''] 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Also, note that I said that patrolling indicates either that the page has been assessed as valid, OR that it's been marked for deletion as having a substantial problem of some kind or another (has it been AfD'd? PRODded? Marked as CoI? Yes? Then patrol). ] (]) 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	<-unindent ] got marked as "patrolled" even though a casual reading would have shown it's nonsense. I put a speedy deletion tag on it. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Great! That worked out just fine didn't it? ] <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	If I'm unsure I leave a page to another patroller. If it's not obvious that the page is a blpvio or copyvio or should otherwise be immediately prodded, I'll mark as patrolled. But really, all "Patrolled" means is that a human being looked at it at least briefly, and judged that at least it wasn't a TOTAL disaster. :-P You can still feel free to disagree with that person, of course.
	I've heard several people comment here that a lot of unpatrolled pages are gratuitous steaming piles of excrement of male bovine (more often than average).
	Well *duh*, that's what the (un)patrolled flag is for! Those pages ought to be checked! You'll have much better odds finding bad stuff in unpatrolled pages than you will elsewhere. I'd say that's a goldmine for wikignomes who want to boost their AFD-count! ;-)
	Even if some pages get marked as patrolled incorrectly, that doesn't mean that the pages that are *not* (yet) marked as patrolled are any more correct. They still need to be checked. Let's start worrying about people not using the patrolled flag optimally when we actually start running out of unpatrolled pages :-P.
	Finally, perhaps it's an idea to sometimes leave a message on talk pages of pages you've patrolled, telling why you decided a particular page is ok. (in cases where you don't prod or anything) :-)
	--] (]) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	== ] protection level decrease ==
	Hello! I know there's already a section above for this, but I wanted to make a new section to get people's attention. In about 45 minutes, at 24:00 UTC, I intend to reduce the protection level of ] to semi-protection, per the discussion at ], assuming the general idea there stays the same. I have gone through the templates and semi'd the ones which were unprotected (and were only being caught by cascading protection). It would be nice to have as many people as possible working on this article when the protection level drops, to show that we as a wiki are able to deal with even our most popular articles. Thanks! ] ] 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:OMG!!!!!!!!1!!!1! ] 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Some people have pointed out to me that I said ] Either way, it's in half an hour. ;) ] ] 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:: It's looking a lot better so far. I think the child articles are working well together with this main article. <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Block Request for Keeper76 for Stalking ==
	{{resolved|Though how you actually "resolve" something as daft as this...}}
	The user has repeatedly stalked users who have used this IP address. The address is from a publically-shared computer, and has many users each day. The user has sent very impolite message to many different users from this address, and deserves to be blocked. —Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:This just makes KillerChihuahua look even cleverer :-( <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Delete''', non notable. ] (]) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Ray Ray, is that you? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yes, it appears to be Ray Ray's official nom de guerre. Or nom de wiki. He followed community consensus on choice of names, giving up a rather racy Monty Python name, and, keeping in the John Cleese train of thought, a Fawlty Towers reference. He's still whining about not wanting to use his admin powers, but he's back. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::It may be spelt "Short Brigade Harvester Boris" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove". ] (]) 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Thing is, I can't actually see that Keeper has edited that IPs talkpage at all. Ah well. Resolved. <b>]</b> 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	**''I are confoooooooozed cat...this are seerius bizniss-''-also known as "JiggaWHAAAA?" El Keep is one of the best admins we've got...perdoname iffen this block-request escapes me, but again I ask you: HUHH?] 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	***In fairness to the IP, a library IP, I was to block it. It was a 31 hour block for calling ] a jackass ''and'' a jackoff, in one . I must've neglected to post the the IP talk, my bad. ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	== Another sockpuppeting case's review of the day ==
	(Copied from my (FayssalF) talk page - please feel free to comment)
			== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
	Why do you think Saxphonemn is an Einstein puppet? Saxphonemn's English is pretty poor from what I remember, while Einstein's is not. Both are over the top, but otherwise, I din't think they seem similar. Of course, I do not have the tools to check.] (]) 17:33, 8 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)}}
	:Sposer, I don't ''think'' but they ''are.''
			repost from archive:
	:Many Misplaced Pages sockpuppets haven't been similar at all. "I cann wroten bud anglis forevere and gut away with it."
	:I am really sorry Sposer, I am not going to waste another 2 days to argue about this and I don't think I am permitted to discuss the privacy of anyone here by giving you the details of the Check. Some other CheckUser operator may help by reviewing the case. -- ] / <small>]</small> 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Maybe you can answer this: When you said "by proxy" did you mean that you believe this is meatpuppetry? Or did you mean that Saxphonemn edited from an open proxy IP? ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::In reviewing Saxophonemn's block earlier, I interpreted the proxy point to mean that the editor was using proxies to edit as the sock; I'd like clarification as well, actually. Thanks, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Open proxy IP... using '''exactly''' the '''same user agent version''' "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.20.1". The rest is known to everyone (voting the same stuff, editing the same articles, the same users ], appearing at the same period, the history of ]'s sockpuppeting). If someone prefers to call that meatpuppetry, then go ahead. We must not forget that the I-P related articles are under restrictions. I suggest you read the whole thread at the AN/I for all details. -- ] / <small>]</small> 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Good enough for me - thanks. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Wasn't looking for private info. Was he using same IP address? Stuff like that. I look at many of the pages he does too. Lots of folks see what CJCurrie's edits. I personally do not believe he is using a sockpuppet, not that I think Einstein or Sax add very much to Wiki. Sad that he is blocked and other admins are using incomplete info to defend it. Then again, if you tell me same IP address, I will believe you. You have far more info than I do.] (]) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Open proxies Sposer. We have been having sockpuppets editing from 2 separate continents, let alone dozens from different locations within a country. In case there are doubts, we refer to the ]. In this case, both accounts from 2 different location used the very same user agent. It is posted above. This means that both accounts allegedly editing from different locations edited using the same version of Mozilla (5.0), the same OS (Macintosh, the same processor (Intel Mac OS X 10 5 4), the same web kit (AppleWebKit/525.18), etc....
	::::::Still doubting? Ok, this is ] which can be taught at schools of sockpuppeting. Note that ] and Co. (not forgetting ]) was a prolific pro-Hizbollah dedicated sockpuppet and POV pusher. Sposer, please allow me to describe myself as a "vieja puta" in this business (apologies for the dirty language). If you want to read more about my adventures with socks you can consult ] as well. Sri lanka-LTTE area is ] after my ''raid.'' -- ] / <small>]</small> 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Fayssal, thanks for the explanation. Certainly an inexact science. I have firefox and IE on most of my PC's, but I will take your word for it. I do not know enough to be sure he is doing this, but you guys have to do the best you can!] (]) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::True, it is an inexact science. There's no doubt about that. I have 4 different browsers and use 3 for wikipedia because IE sucks (i am a Microsoft guy but not an IE one). I use the 3 exchangingly (when one gets frozen - because of the multiple tabs I get opened, I use another). I don't know why I am telling you this but well...I totally appreciate your questions. It is a pleasure Sposer. Anytime. -- ] / <small>]</small> 00:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			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.
	== More eyes on ] please. ==
			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 ].
	The subject of this article had gone missing, and search crews have found a body near where the person's campsite was. News articles are alternatively saying that the body has yet to be identified, and that it has been identified as the subject. Probably going to need some watching of the article as details come in. ] (]) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I've just deleted two paragraphs, one of which quotes an unreliable source and one of which is hearsay. (actually, double hearsay, since the quotes attributed to a hearsay witness were themselves unsourced)<font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	== WikiVersity is an important resource that admins can use to help with conflict resolution ==
			* : 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''
	"Wikiversity strives to provide useful services to WikiMedia sister projects. A continual problem facing Misplaced Pages is finding good sources to cite. Many Misplaced Pages editors have a specific agenda and are perfectly willing to cite poor and unverifiable sources to support claims that are made in Misplaced Pages articles. Wikiversity is a center for scholarship in finding and critically evaluating sources. Wikiversity participants are encouraged to create Wikiversity pages corresponding to any Misplaced Pages article." - http://en.wikiversity.org/Wikiversity_and_Wikipedia_services - - ] (]) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Why are you spamming a page that hasn't been edited in a year? There are not even Wikiversity pages for many basic topics, let alone "any Misplaced Pages article". Why would we go looking for help there? ] (]) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I quoted from that page because I think it is a good idea for some conflicts to be sent to WikiVersity where ORIGINAL RESEARCH and multiple points of view are allowed without regard for notability. People can flesh out their arguments and sources there and then be referred to at wikipedia in a discussion here about whether some of it might be appropriate to add to a wikipedia article. People who work poorly with others can go to WikiVersity and not be stepped on by all the rules we have here. It is useful as one more alternative when trying to sort out a dispute, especially when original research or poor interpersonal skills are involved. ] (]) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity. Apart from the fact that most editors want their stuff to be on Misplaced Pages and not some side project, I doubt that Wikiversity would be happy to get all the fringe science (not to mention the completely trivial things we routinely remove here) from here. And I don't see how "poor interpresonal skills" would be better suited for Wikiversity than for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity, either. I only am suggesting that you guys keep the possibility in mind for those few cases where it might be helpful. ] (]) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: What, so the POV-pushers go there, hone their arguments and then come back to cite their peerless research on Misplaced Pages? Sorry, I don't see how that helps at all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::You are right that it would not help in cases like that, Guy. I only suggest that it be kept in mind as another tool available in admin work. A tool need not be useful every day for it to a useful tool to have available. ] (]) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I do not see how OR is allowed at Wikiversity. ] | ] 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	== Abuse Filter: Last call for objections ==
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
			* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
			* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
			---
	I'm intending on filing a bug requesting the activation of the ] extension on Misplaced Pages in the next few days. I'd like to ask that anybody who has an objection to the activation of this extension make that objection known on ].
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
			* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
			As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	In brief, the extension allows automatic filters/heuristics to be applied to all edits. Specific rules can be developed, such as "users with less than 500 edits are blocked from moving pages to titles which match this regular expression: /hagger/". Of course, the rules can get quite a bit more complicated &ndash; I've developed, for example, a rule that blocks all grawp vandalism with a 70% success rate (and blocks the IP address of the user doing it), with about 2-3 false positives per year (I checked it on the last year's worth of moves).
			: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)
	We're planning on treading carefully &ndash; most abuse filters will be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("block", "disallow" or "throttle" modes), and to start with, we'll allow only members of a specific group to modify the filters, although this group will be assignable by administrators.
			::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 ]
	For those interested, full discussion has occurred at ], and there is a ] on <tt>MediaWiki.org</tt>. For the more adventurous among us, you may test out the abuse filter itself on ; you're free to ask me for admin rights to have a better look at it.
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	Thanks, &mdash; ]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;] 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Strongly oppose implementation until such crude and drama-inducing features as "removing all userrights" and "adding a block log entry for established accounts" are removed. ] (]) 06:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I think that the private info shouldn't be there. If such information is necessary, it can be checked by any ]; otherwise, it should remain unknown. ] ] 07:06, 9 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)
	It is intended that the 'degroup' option is to be left out. I've discussed this with you on IRC, and still think that leaving a block log entry is ''essential'' for all blocks done. &mdash; ]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;] 09:33, 9 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.
	:How can an extension block an account? Rather, who would the block log say did the blocking? ] 09:40, 9 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.
	A special pseudo-user called 'Abuse filter'. &mdash; ]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;] 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*No objections to this since the only controversial issue, automated desysopping, has been dropped. ] (]) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)		:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Support. Nothing wrong with blocking Grawp. If the thing screws up (rare) we can leave a note in the block log saying so. ] (]) 11:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)		::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}
	*Oppose I will stuff BEANS up it's nose. —Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			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.
	:Well, you will when your block expires. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*I support this, obviously. Let's try not to hit the fan with it, though :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' this seems to be an excellent feature of the MediaWiki that will bring a very large net positive to the project. I mean, who can complain about 1-2 mistakes PER YEAR just with the filter generated. Even if it messed up one in every ten blocks (yes, that would be annoying) it would still have a huge net positive to the project. — '''^.^''' <sup>&#91;''] ]''&#93;</sup> 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	* woo-hoo! Let's see it in action. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Support''', given that we start with basic filters to make sure this isn't going to crash the wiki. I know you've tested this already, Werdna, but we're a good deal bigger than your average test wiki, and we've got the added issue of possible dramaz, something which can't be debugged. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' this is clearly necessary, is a net benefit to the project and there are safeguards in place. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	* As long as there are strong restrictions on who can create and edit filters, I don't have any objections. --] (]) 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. Please let us know where the logs are.... — ] ] 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Barnstar for Werdna support''' This is an excellent piece of news. Hersfold makes a good point, though I imagine Werdna has considered it, and if he hasn't Brion will... ] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Although I wish it had a feature to that came to your house and smashed your computer if you vandalized. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Object''' Unless all filters are made public. ] (]) 20:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	**Making the filter rules public would allow smart abusers to design new attacks to avoid them. Is there some specific concern you have? ] 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Let us not be lazy, if they abuse - we block them. Remember our statement of principles bank in '01? Regarding open algorithms? This still holds. I think the idea of closed algorithms goes against us, as a matter of project ]. ] (]) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	** Presumably if someone has any serious issues then can post saying "Hey! I'm trying to do X and I can't." ] (]) 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Has my support. Impressive work by Werdna. ] ] 00:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Very strong oppose''' in principle to performing blocks or other admin actions by any sort of automated process. I know the intentions are good, but experience with bots shows that they tend to degenerate. The proposed blocks should be written to a log for human review. ''']''' (]) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per DGG. Admin actions should be performed by admins, not by a bot. I have no objection to bots being developed and used which assist admins, for example by identifying possibly problematic edits, but a bot running according to rules which cannot be scrutinized by the community is in no way suitable for performing admin actions. ] (]) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per my comments on the project talk page. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Strong oppose''' Obama is a Muslim and will take away our guns</s> '''Support''', of course. Great concept, great work, erroneous blocks can be undone. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	* This has my complete support. Assuming we have a false positive, we can always unblock. Blocks are harmless and fully reversible. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)</em>
	* It's about time. Let's do this already! ]] 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	* When was a straw poll called for? Oh well, '''support''' as long as it doesn't do anything particularly "crude and drama-inducing", like Daniel said above. ]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup> 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Careful logging required''', and a course of response for people who show up as false positives (collateral damage), and people standing by to provide prompt action on such responses. --] (]) 01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== A sudden wave of Image talk: test pages ==
			:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
			::::* To who would this be a threat?
			::::* Which law?
			::::* In which country?
			::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
			::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
			::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
			::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
			::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	It seems to me that in the past few days, a variety of IP addresses have been creating test pages in the Image talk: namespace, where the corresponding image exists. Any idea what's going on? ] ] 11:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Could be a coordinated attack from somewhere, or just one of the Many Mysteries of Misplaced Pages (such as "why do people ask the most random things at ]???"). ] 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Why do we even have an Image talk namespace? Looking at recent changes , it seems their only purpose is wikiproject tracking and random people asking random questions that no one will ever see to answer. Great namespace, ranks up there with Help talk. :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::And Category talk... ] (]) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	Should we put up, in the Image Talk: section of ], some sort of banner directing users to the sandboxes? ] ] 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:It could be done better using a namespace edit-notice. Maybe something pointing them at the ] or some sort of image discussion page. I'll try to code something later and bring it here to show. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:IPs can't create new articles, but they can create new Talk pages. Probably found out they could mess around that way. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			* I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::As promised, here is the proposed edit notice {{tl|Visibility-IT}} ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
			*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]?
			*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
			*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]?
			*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]?
			*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
			*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
			*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
	{{resolved|1=Questionable images deleted. --] (]) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)}}
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
	This user has uploaded a metric buttload of fair use images of people, and despite multiple warnings, has failed to change their ways and since ended up blocked. Would it be too much to ask that be deleted as orphaned fairuse? I started to tag a few but there're, like, 300 of these things. ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Working on it ... --] (]) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Done (though it was only about 30 images)! --] (]) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	== ] ==
			{{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)
	{{resolved}}
			::* 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)
	Hai guyz. Attempted to create redirect page from misspelt ] to correct article name ] but was told the article's on a blacklist. Why? It's a valid and helpful redirect. Lemme know ^^ ] (]) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	*Looks like it got protected a while back (most likely becuase it was a chronically re-created article). If you wish for it to be unprotected, you might ask at ] in the unprotection section. ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::The instructions given when trying to create it say to ask here. ] (]) 12:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::It's not protected, and there's no deletion for that page. My best guess would be that the inclusion of the "....." is caught by a new page blacklist designed to stop a certain P....E....R....S....O....N and their pagemove vandalism. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Anyway, I've created the redirect. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I think that many periods would hit the article blacklist. ] (]) 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The error message I got when trying to create it referred to ], a page which I have difficulty reading, let alone understanding. ] (]) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent) That would be it - it's to ensure that certain pages with certain terms can't be created. The illegible text is the list of rules for all those pages which editors withour administrator rights cannot create, to try and cut down on vandalism. In this instance, the number of ....s would have fallen foul on one of the restrictions trying to prevent a persistent vandal. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:53, 9 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.
	== CERN & LHC ==
			: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 ==
	Hi, would a few of you mind just adding to your watchlists the following articles.
			*{{userlinks|Oct13}}
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	I reckon the vandalism over the next 48 hours is going to increase quite alot with the impending start up and all the press interest in it. The article are semi-protected at the moment, but the talk pages aren't to allow anon IP's to request changes etc. <sup>]]</sup> 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Well hopefully either we'll all be sucked into a black hole or they will shut up about it. Either way... <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Tomorrow sees particles accelerated in the ring, but there won't be any collisions for a few weeks, so if we're all gonna die, it won't happen just yet ;). ]] 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Removed the sprot due to it's seen to be protectionist or ring fencing the article. May need a few more eyes, thanks. <sup>]]</sup> 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I recommend posting this to the ]. You should get a few fringe-watchers interested that way. ] (]) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme) ==
			: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)
	I noted on ANI that ] was becoming an edit warground. In the course of attempting to slow things down and get parties talking, I made a simple post on ], reiterating what most experienced editors know already: that you don't need 3RR to be blocked for edit warring, and stating my position that Kelly's edits were not removal of clear POV nor BLP violations (Kelly was at 6RR at the time.) Kelly responded by personalizing the dispute, claiming this was some kind of "IDCab vendetta" which was noted by others on (Note MastCell and Carcharoth's comments.) Carcharoth posted on Kelly's talk page Kelly responded by saying "The IDCab folks push my buttons; they have tag-teamed me before. Based on my experience, any article they get involved with is sure to become a hellhole of POV-pushing and BLP vios" This was at '''21:39, 7 September 2008'''. No evidence was offered for Kelly's accusations against the ID Wikiproject, which Kelly persists in calling the "IDCab". Please note that no other member of the ID Wikiproject has posted on that talk page, or on Kelly's talk page. This did not stop Kelly from continuing to present this as an "attack" by the "IDCab" - which is a phrase I view as a violation of NPA. Carharoth informed Kelly that "the ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate. Please don't perpetuate that meme" Kelly responded wtih " I take it you've never been the target of the ID folks...But I promise to be nice and bite my tongue when I see them around" This both perpetuated the meme and indicated that Kelly would not attack me with that particular NPA. Cla68 made a comment supporing the meme and making a blanket accusation without any supporting links. Followed by Kya the Catlord's highly disruptive "Screw them all. I'm out of here. IDcab and their new found attack dog jossi have won" which manages to insult myself (as the only member of the ID Wikiproject involved), the ID Wikiproject in general, although the article is not related to ID, ID has not been mentioned, and no other project members have edited there; and Jossi, who is now being lumped in with the "IDCab" - why I have no idea.
	Attacks on Jossi: See on Kelly's talk page. Kelly states "there are a lot of left-wing folks" on Misplaced Pages; Jossi stated he was not left-wing, and Kelly responded, astonishingly enough, with "Hey, Jossi - don't you have some wheel-warring to do somewhere, or maybe an ArbCom case to comment in?" Now, while I think jossi was wasting his time discussing his political views - they should be irrelevant unless one allows bias to creep into one's editing, and should not be mentioned by anyone unless that is the case - there is no excuse for the repsonse Kelly gives.
	I attempt to work it out with Kelly:
	Kelly responds with more of the same, rejecting my attempt and (again) using the "IDCab" nonsense and adding further insults.
			: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)
	Now, throughout all of this, I was the only member of the ID wikiproject involved; ID was not mentioned; the article was not an ID article, and Kelly has attacked me and the project (calling it "the IDCab") and Cla has supported that attack; and Kyaa has not only supported that attack but has added jossi, with whom Kelly had several content disputes on the article in question, of being "the IDCab's new attack dog". This nonsense must stop. It is disruptive and insulting and poisonous, and prevents any productive discussion, as Kelly et al merely tar and feather those with whom they disagree with the "IDCab" label, even if ID is not involved in the slightest, and apparently now even if they are not a member of the ID Wikiproject. I have attempted discourse; I have been not only rebuffed but additional attacks and insults added. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I recommend trout all around and that everyone just avoid each other for a week. Go write on ] and ] for a while.--] (]) 17:02, 9 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)
	::As you have missed much of the background of this, you may be unaware of the pervasiveness. This is the last chapter in quite a saga, and I for one would be happy enough if editing "Birds" would fix the problem. Unfortunately, it won't. Otherwise, editing "Sarah Palin" would have fixed it, since it has nothing to freaking do with Intelligent Design, and There is No Cabal, but that doesn't stop some editors from screaming "Oh noes I'm being attacked by the Evil Id Cabal" whenever they disagree with anyone even remotely associated (and in the case of jossi, not associated at all) with the the Intelligent Design Wikiproject. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Have the relevant users mentioned in the above text been informed of this thread? I'd like to hear their side of the story. <big>]</big> 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Kelly is aware of this thread. I would not dismiss this matter so quickly as KC has brought diffs and claims that those diffs at least on face value appear to back up. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::What exactly is to be done, anyway? I see the options are nothing, asking everyone to back off for a while, or push people through dispute resolution. You can't tell people to stop believing theres a cabal. Asking people to stop saying its the work of a cabal takes a lot of patience, but there isn't really a remedy that can be done.--] (]) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::NB: from ] Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Implication? Stop accusing eachother of being part of cabals, its unproductive.--] (]) 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::That's part of the point of KC's post, as I read it -- to request, or at least bring attention to, the lack of enforcement of that particular snippet you posted. ]] ] 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::"Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." Doesn't always cut it in all cases, but any "enforcement" is best done by outside parties.--] (]) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::What is isolated about this? The whole point KC is making is that it is repetitive and not at all isolated. And the outside parties are here. ]] ] 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The "outside parties" would be you and others reading this, Tzn. Its why I am ehre. I am tired of this constant BS. I am tired of being repeatedly maligned. I am tired of the gaming of the system. I am pinging the "others" to step up to the plate and start doing something about this poisoning of the well. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	(outdent) I presume you mean asking everyone who is actually promulgating the attack meme, not innocent parties who are being maligned. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
	:I have to agree that the whole IDCabal meme is becoming old. It's really just a thinly veiled attack on what certain editors' politics are presumed to be. It's one thing to say "Lol, yeah the cabal is gonna get you" jokingly, without referring to any specific editors explicitly or implicitly. It's a whole different thing to identify the group, identify or strongly imply who the editors are, and accuse them of everything short of Nazi eugenics. Oh wait, I forgot, it's the ID cabal so it's ok to bring that sort of thing up cause they all believe that right? (See how easy it is to fall into that trap)? It's not something so easily dismissed as saying "Go do something else for a week", when whatever "else" it is that certain editors do, their detractors follow them there. ]] ] 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::I agree. What I'm saying is, the IDCabal accusation is not different from any other cabal accusation. Its already against policy, and normal warnings about personal attacks and inflammatory statements apply. There is nothing else to be done her ehtough. {{unsigned|Tznkai}}
			Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
	:::It's significantly more in-depth than other accusations in that it has lasted longer, is more direct, and has perpetuated through various arbitrations. Are you in fact familiar with the situation?]] ] 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Heh. It took exactly 43 minutes of this thread being open before someone mentioned ]. Is that a record? ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	I really think Kelly and others should stop making the dispute personal (comment on content, not the contributor). It's a bad enough dispute as it is without people attacking each other. <big>]</big> 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Concur. However, you will note in my evidence above, that several people made just that suggestion; one in fairly strong terms, and the response was to '''repeat''', not cease, the attacks. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I suggest taking some dispute resolution with Kelly (who seems to be the main person here). Requests for comments? With the intended outcome that Kelly stops attacking other editors? If he/she realizes his/her behavior is a problem, perhaps he/she'll listen and stop it. <big>]</big> 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I've posted a polite warning on Kelly's Talk. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I wish I could say it was going well ]<sup>]</sup> 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::Since Kelly appears to be laughing this off and isn't taking it seriously, I really do urge an RfC. Looking at some of the above diffs, this is somewhat of an ongoing problem and needs to be nipped in the bud, before irreversable damage is done. <big>]</big>
	::::I actually suggest against that. An RFC is just another forum for Kelly to perpetuate the same allegations. Either block, or continue the discussion on his/her talk page, or whatever, but opening up an RFC only invites the ID allegations to be drawn out even more, inflamming things even more, etc. ]] ] 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I agree. Kelly has responded to multiple requests and warnings on his/her talk page, and to this discussion here, with disdain and more attacks. An Rfc would simply change the venue, not what the problem is nor Kelly's attitude. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Also agree that an RFC is not necessary (or even remotely helpful towards any resolution)right now. ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Then how do you propose Kelly changes their behaviour? <big>]</big> 21:52, 9 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>
	*Since there pretty much is an ] among uninvolved that there is a group of users, often referred to as the IDcabal, who regularly act as a group and attempt to run roughshod over others, the meme is not going to die out. It will only die out when the behavior does. Unfortunately for KC, the facts are that his behaivour is once again that of coming to a dispute other members of the group were involved in. He may or may not have been aware of this, but edits at ] and ] and their talk pages definitely reveal edits by other members of the group as part of this dispute. Frankly, if he wants the description to go away, the behavior has to go away first. ] 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Berry, withdraw your very serious, and wrong-headed, accusation. I have not edited either of those articles, and not only am I unaware of any edits by others who are members of the ID Wikiproject, '''''it does not matter if there were''''', that is a personal attack. Wtihdraw it. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Adding, if my behavior has at any time during this been questionable, name it and link to it. This bullshit about "behavior must go away first" is yet more propegation of the thoroughly wrong and divisive and false IDCab meme. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Adding, to save others the time and effort, GRBerry is being very misleading in linking to that Rfc; there is NO consensus as he claims; that is false. The Rfc was started by members of the ID Wikiproject in an attempt to get this kind of labeling '''stopped''', and the most endorsed sections are: Not a Battleground (SirFozzie), 19; Waste of time (A'li), 18; and Labels are bad (Rocksanddirt), 16. All of those were endorsed by members of the Wikiproject. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Viewing every editing dispute as a battle in an ongoing war of cabals is stupid, destructive conspiracism. This approach to editing and to working with each has damaged the project. It needs to stop, but I have no idea how to stop it. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I habve no idea what to do. See the last two links in my long evidence post. I tried to talk to Kelly, who responded to a 3RR warning with allegations of persecution by the "IDCab", although none were there and the article had no relation to ID. Kelly's talk page became a morass of others supporing that meme and adding on to the attacks. Now GRBerry has gone so far as to tell me that I edited the talk page of an article which was ''related'' to an article which another ID project member had edited, so it is all my fault and I must change my behavior! That is such nonsense I cannot believe a sane person is suggesting it. Its a personal attack; I suggest we block on sight. I'm out of other ideas. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:There certainly has been some collusion between "ID cabal" members. I don't know if that's the case here, but it certainly happens. --] 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Oh, yes? What was the result of the RfC? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::The only "result" of an RFC is comments, hence the name. --] 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Could you link to it? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::You mean ]? I figured you were asking a rhetorical question, since I hadn't mentioned any RFC. --] 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm surprised, because the comments at that RfC mostly contradict your claim that 'certainly has been some collusion...', and suggest that accusing people of membership in such a cabal is a problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::You're the one that mentioned the RFC. I'm just saying that I have noticed some collusion between the people who are commonly known as the "ID cabal". --] 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I understand the impulse to block, and persistent name calling justifies it. But recall how blocks of established users for personal attacks have gone in the past. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I am, as I said, open to suggestions. However I am also frustrated that this divisive name-calling and tarring and feathering is either being blown off, ignored, or - and this is appalling to me - supported by the admins here. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:06, 9 September 2008 (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)
	::: One suggestion I would have would be that anyone who repeats this meme needs to go help improve an article (I've got a very long list of articles that need a lot of work). But I might be in this the evil IDcabal so I guess my opinion isn't valid. ] (]) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (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)
	::KC, I agree with you, and I don't support it, but we have to recognize that a block won't be sustained. And you see from my discussion with NE2 above how little good an RfC will do. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 9 September 2008 (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 ==
	Two comments: (1) Accusations of cabalish behavior are not, in themselves, an attack, and stopping them altogether is not really a realistic or desirable solution. However, (2) there is an appropriate time, place, and way to bring up such criticisms, and content disputes are generally not appropriate. It appears that Kelly has diverged from the topic at hand and started commenting on contributors, which is rarely a good thing; however, Kelly does seem to have disengaged for the time being, which will hopefully give them a chance to cool off. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 9 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.
	===Proposal===
	* It is time to stamp out this stupid and childish meme once and for all. I propose that if any of editor ''ever'' mentions the so-called "ID cabal" ever again in a way that even smells faintly of bad faith, they be blocked, with escalating blocks for future recurrences. It has gone on for far too long, it is an absolute case of assuming bad faith and ascribing motives where none need exist, combining elements of ] and ] - and that's even before you get to the undeniable fact that ID is a ] view and therefore would quite rightly be the target of careful ring-fencing against the documented relentless POV-pushing of its advocates, an issue which occurs as much in the real world as on Misplaced Pages. And I don't give a toss who it is who raises this stupid and malicious meme, be they my best friend or my worst enemy, they should be blocked because it is well past its sell-by date. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:47, 9 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)
	: Eh. Don't think this is a good idea due to more or less Sχeptomaniac's reasoning above. Probably better to just block when we would block normally. Accusations of cabalism when made in an obviously uncivil fashion and bad faith fashion should be blocked almost regardless of what group one is talking about. On the other hand, the line for that sort of thing is very hard to draw. ] (]) 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::While I am sympathetic to JzG's position, and would've suggested the same way back when, I think this will only escalate the distrust. That having been said, Sχeptomaniac is wrong. It IS a personal attack, because it is designed to attack the editor, who we hope is a person.--] (]) 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::It may be a personal attack, but it also happens to be undeniably true (in that they work together to "protect their own" against outside people). I'll repeat what someone said further up.. if they want people to stop calling them that, then it's time to stop acting like that. ] (]) 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Fozzie why don't we paraphrase that and make it more explicit: If any group of editors edit the same articles and have each others talkpages watchlisted and Fozzie doesn't like them then any conspiracy theory about them is fine. And the only way for them to get rid of that is to pretend that they never ever notice an edit by any of the others and can't comment on any edit remotely related to one of the others. And it doesn't matter how diverse the editing interests of those editors are. Hmm, said that way it sounds a bit less reasonable doesn't it? And if you have any doubts that that is precisely the sort of situation we are talking about you should go and read the above discussion carefully. KC gave a standard 3RR warning and was then accused of cabalism because another one of teh-evil-cabal editors had edited a related article. Do you see why this is ridiculous? ] (]) 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Re to Fozzie: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no othe ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me '''I''' need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? Is that what makes it "undeniably true" that the "IDCab" is "working together to protect their own"? Does this make any sense in your world? Because in the world the rest of us live it, its nonsense. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: In my world that's called having friends. Friends are not cabals, even when they share an interest in protecting the project against the promotion of a particular fringe view. I thought ProtectEachOther was supposed to be a ''good'' thing, but it seems that what is happening here is the drawing of battle lines, and I feel the best reaction to that is to take away the flags and banners - in this case the blatantly ill-faith "ID cabal" label. Or perhaps we should simply balance things out and call the other lot the POV-pusher cabal? No, I thought not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::(ec) Inaccurate, Tznkai. I never said that Kelly's accusation of cabalism was not an attack. What I said is that whether an accusation is an attack or criticism largely depends on context. Making the accusation in the middle of a content dispute is usually an attack, as it changes focus from the content to the contributor (]). However, stopping all accusations of an "ID Cabal" (ugh, I never did like that term) is not a realistic solution. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::Spare me the ] and ], Joshua. Editors involved in the Misplaced Pages Project: Intelligent Design have a long, detailed history, brought up in Requests for Comments, ArbCom, of basically watching each others backs when one of them gets in a heated discussion/edit war. This is not a bad thing on it's face.. it's even codified in one of WP's principles.. "Defend Each Other". But there's a danger in taking that too far, that when a group of users band together and basically work as a steamroller.. (One, or more, provokes, another comes in and pretends to be neutral, "It looks like you're getting heated", etcetera, and then when the target finally snaps from the constant badgering, the resulting diffs are then used to discredit others in future arguments. I've seen it happen multiple times. And for, as you say, a group of editors whose editing interests are REMARKABLY diverse, it's rather interesting to always see "The Familiar Faces in the Familiar Places" when it comes to disputes about one of them. In fact, there's a proposed decision in an ongoing ArbCom case that notes just that. ] (]) 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Re to Fozzie: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no other ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me '''I''' need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? Is that what makes it "undeniably true" that the "IDCab" is "working together to protect their own"? Does this make any sense in your world? Because in the world the rest of us live it, its nonsense. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Oh grow up. All you've done is rephrase identical accusations. And indeed you seem to have ignored or misunderstood my points. If you have a large number of editors with diverse interests it makes it more likely not less like that they will end up running into each other over multiple areas. And I find it interesting that you completely ignored any issue of talk page watchlists and ignored my comment about the original context of what led to this particular accusation. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to you at this point. If you are going to continue, maybe say something productive? ] (]) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Call for mentors ==
	::::::Did I say Kelly was not edit warring? Nope. Don't believe I did. I even suggested Kelly take a break from WP, to avoid further being antagonized with an attempt to discredit them. And yes, I think there is a group of editors, commonly referred to by the phrase under question, that need to change behavior. And it makes sense not only in my world, but to at least certain ArbCom members as well. From ].. '''(E) From time to time, FeloniousMonk has edited certain articles, particularly those relating to controversies involving intelligent design, in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.''' (3 supports, 0 Oppose, 1 Abstain, needs two more supports to pass). So I feel like I'm pretty firmly grounded in the real world here. ] (]) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I must have missed the '''FeloniousMonk = All members of Wikiproject ID''' - could you link me to that? Also where '''Calling the project, both members and en toto, the "IDCab" is acceptable whenever you encounter them, for any reason or no reason.''' - where is that, please? And the bit where '''3 supports = consensus by the entire Misplaced Pages community''' - you're on firm ground are you? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Just wondering who you thought the "one or more editors" were then? And yeah, I think I'm on bedrock, here. ] (]) 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Take 3 on getting a straight answer out of you on this question: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no othe ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me I need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::And Take 3 at saying the same thing despite you and I talking past each other, KC. The members of the Wikiproject:Intelligent Design have been noticed by quite a few people, including members of the Arbitration Committee, as working in a fashion that resembles "Excessively Coordinated Editing". When Kelly earned AT LEAST a warning about 6RR (and as I've said before, despite you twisting my words, that Kelly deserved that at the very least, and as I've said before, I suggested on Kelly's page that they take a break from WP to avoid getting overly frustrated), I object to the messenger, not the message. I do think members of Wikiproject:Intelligent Design DO need to modify their behavior. Does that answer your question in sufficient detail, or are we going to have to continue to try to score points on each other? ] (])
	(Outdent) No, it really doesn't. My complaint is that Kelly responded to the EW post I made by claiming it was some kind of persecution by the "IDCab". I fail to see how your statement addresses that at all. I have not intentionally "twisted" your words; I have a valid issue and you've responded by basically repeating that there is a cabal, and the ID wikiproject members need to change their behavior. I see absolutely no connection or logic in what you're saying. You are perpetuating and encouraging name calling as a reflex attack whenever anyone sees any member of the ID Wikiproject anywhere. This is unacceptable. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:As I suspected, we;re talking past each other, and both of us repeating the same things over and over again. That you think I'm "Perpetuating and encouraging name calling as a reflex" with my viewpoint on members of the ID Wikiproject. and that I think that there is a group of editors who work as a unit to discredit and harass other users. I think we'll leave it there or take it private, if you so wish, I don't think we're adding value at all at this point. ] (]) 01:22, 10 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)
	::I'd prefer to keep it here, as others may be having the same difficulties communicating. Or they may be able to see the "missing bit" that one or the other of us is simply not getting from the others' posts. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:28, 10 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)
			::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
			:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			==Discussion at ]==
	*What if the group of people who are strongly in favour of adding a "scientific point of view" that results in non-neutral, highly negative articles, edit the intelligent design article (and related articles) in ways that resemble cabalism? Using the two line description I just typed is tiresome. But it's OK; I didn't say the badwords, right? ] (]) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
	:: ID is ], evolution is mainstream. That's not some kind of extremist scientific point of view, it's simple fact. And it is also simple fact that ID proponents have been battling for years in the real world and on Misplaced Pages to paint their fringe view as a valid mainstream alternative to evolution. We are duty-bound to resist that, per ]. The fact that some people who support the mainstream view of ID - i.e. that it is a fringe view - joined the ID wikiproject is an entirely good thing. Wikiprojects made up only of those with a supportive point of view are a recipe for disaster. And editors helping each other not to get overheated? That's a good thing too. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::When you take an article about someone who may or may not have intended to help push a fringe view by signing a petition and make it mostly about that signature, that's undue weight. That's what the so-called "ID cabal" are probably best-known for doing. --] 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:If something is "undeniably true" then it doesn't need to be said. Now, this conversation about bad faith is being done in bad faith. This isn't ironic, but it is stupid and unproductive. Accusing someone of cabalism, especially in the culture and language of Wikipedians is highly insulting. Just because something is in your view true, doesn't mean you should say it. Pointing out someone is say, descendant of a mass murder is seldom going to be anything but an attack, even when its true.--] (]) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
	:Oh you mean ] which got to featured article status and despite intense focus by people claiming that this evil cabal exists have not changed almost anything on that article? Yeah that's real non-neutral. So non-neutral that when other editors come along they keep it just as is. Right... ] (]) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
	*For those who think BADSITES didn't go far enough, let's have a BADWORDS policy! I nominate "meme" as one of the banned words, since the main thing it seems to be used for is to try to discredit ideas without actually refuting them logically, by claiming them to be BADMEMES, probably being promoted by BADPEOPLE on BADSITES. But if you start blocking people for saying taboo words, then as somebody has pointed out on one of those Sites Which Must Not Be Named, this strongly brings to mind that funny Monty Python routine about people being stoned for saying "Jehovah". ] (]) 23:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	**]''"Memes propagate themselves and can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus"''--] 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	***Yes, which makes it very easy to discredit something as a reasonable viewpoint by referring to it as a 'meme'. Personally I think ID is a load of rubbish, but I also feel that there has been quite a bit of over-coordinated editing on the topic by several people who feel the same way as I do. While 'cabalism' might not be a particularly useful word, there is often the impression of something going on that people will refer to in that way. Remember that ''truth'' is a pretty subjective thing. ] (]) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	* Oppose Guy's proposal above. My reasons are known to arbcom. :-) --] (]) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	===I'm not getting it===
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Can someone explain to be what a supposed "ID Cabal" has to do with the Sarah Palin pages? I edit the ] pages from the scientific POV, and I also edited ] and ]. Am I a part of the cabal now? FWIW, I started editing the SP pages after numerous pleas on this board for assistance from Kelly. It's not like these pages are obscure now. Can one of the anti-anti-ID people show me a supposed connection, or they going to support this completely unsubstantiated attack?
			* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Heritage Foundation ==
	I have also hesitated joining any wikiproject because of these attacks. There's no way I'm going to put my name on a list just so I can be considered a conspirator. ] (]) 02:27, 10 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)
	:"ID cabal" is a ] that has caught on, perhaps misleadingly, and refers to certain names that keep "popping up everywhere" and were first noticed in relation to ID. Unless you plan to do the things the "ID cabal" is accused of doing, I doubt you'll be lumped in. --] 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Deleted contributions request ==
	::Doesn't everyone have a watchlist? I have the talk pages of others who hold similar interests watchlisted. I even look at their edit histories. They will point me to articles that I may have overlooked. Palin has been a subject of The Panda's Thumb blog and Pharyngula (in addition to every political blog out there) which I doubt I'm the only wiki anti-IDer to read. So using Palin to claim cabalism is just silly. ] (]) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	It's not a "term of art", it's a slur. It was hammered away by Moulton at WR to slur the people who opposed him over here. It was adopted by the WR regulars and used here as a slur. Everyone uses it differently, but basically it means "people that I want to discredit who can be loosely tied to a certain group of editors who built the intelligent design article up to FA status". It's sort of like the way the far right uses "liberal" as a slur. ] (]) 03:05, 10 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 ] ==
	:It's a group of editors, some of whom are members of the Intelligent Design WikiProject, who frequently support each other in various areas of the project (and sister projects where they have not previously edited), unrelated to Intelligent Design, in order to promote a common goal. So, editing the articles or even joining the project do not make one a member of what some refer to as the "ID cabal", rather editing other areas of the Wikimedia projects that do not relate to the project, with this same group of editors, on a regular basis would. And this sort of behavior cannot be solely attributed to watchlists and contrib stalking, as there is evidence of them going over to ''other projects'' in order to support one side when they have not previously edited that project. I can grab the diff of a Request for Checkusership on Commons, if need be here to give a diffed example. ]] 03:07, 10 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)}}
			]'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)
	::Fascinating. What evidence would there be of this? If you're going to engage in these sorts of attacks, would you please be so kind as to provide some evidence? Either that, or strike your attacks. ] (]) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
	::And in at least one proven case, the group of editors were caught emailing each other, canvassing to mass-oppose a nominee at ]. ] (]) 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Really, when was this? Fozzie, don't you think it's about time you stop misrepresenting the facts. Of course, it blows my irony meter, coming from you. How many rallies to attack on-wiki originate over at WR? Dure, you're funny. ] (]) 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			:Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s>
	== Duplicate ==
			: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. ==
	Please delete ] which is a copy of ]. Thanks.--] (]) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Taking care of it. ] ] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::(laughing) This solution didn't occur to me :)--] (]) 20:25, 9 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)
			== Hide this racist edit. ==
	::: I've done a "history merge", combining the two articles. I've also taken the freedom of doing a bit of a re-write, for neutrality. The text was rather biased in favour of his church; we shouldn't be making a judgment on whether his group or the official church are canonically legitimate or not. We'll just be saying who regards who as what, but not who is right. ] ] 20:39, 9 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)}}
	== Protected edit requests ==
			Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hi, could somebody wander over to ]? (Some of the requests, such as my request for ] are not controversial so shouldn't take too long!) Thanks, --] (]) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	: I added the location parameter to {{tl|Cite web}}, and that alone was probably enough to push the job queue up into the stratosphere. Actually, there are several requests there that need some hashing-out, and a couple that deal with ] ] that I wouldn't know how to test, so I'll let this one edit be the highlight of my day. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Is this actually a blockable offense? ==
			:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
	I made a comment recently, found , and was threatened with a block.
			{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<br/>Since I was trying to be nothing more than honest, direct, and ''complete'', I certainly didn't intend to harrass, berate, or, uh, vandalize? And yet, I was with a block.
	<br/>If I actually ''did'' violate some policy, then I'd love to be updated on wikipedia's new ruleset. (This isn't an issue of wikilawyering here. Even if I violated a general rule of thumb, I'd even want to know that)
	<br/>And yet, if I break down everything I said, each component still seems to be both accurate and reasonable. No, a sockpuppet isn't the same as a forged signature. No, it's not good form to protect someone's talk page in response to an attack they made against you personally (there's never a shortage of other admins who will do that for you, to avoid conflicts of interest). No, removing people's comments from talk pages aren't 'minor' (and, yes, the difference ''is'' just a minor clerical issue). Yes, a non-admin can see if a page has been deleted.
	<br/>So, what, ''precisely'', have I done wrong? And, more importantly, were my crimes actually ''blockable'' offenses?
	<br/>(btw, please reply here, not on my talk page, as this is a dynamic address and I may not see it there)
	<br/>(btbtw, it's up to you if gwen should be notified about this here. I'm asking about ''my'' conduct, so I really don't know if it's necessary) ] (]) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:No, not in itself (but Gwen may or may not have information we do not at this point?). If it were a blockable offense, you have been blocked by now. ''']'''] 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Well, you could simply look at my to see if there is, indeed, any other information that would warrant threatening me with a block. However, since it was a reply to that specific comment of mine, I have to assume that my crime was there. ] (]) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm giving Gwen the benefit of the doubt. I have no opinion other than to say that its not a blockable offense. ''']'''] 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::No, apparently it's personal. I tried asking what I did that warranted the threat. Her response was absurd personal attacks. (you can see part of our dialog )
	::::This is getting absurd. Is she always like this, or just having a bad day? ] (]) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I thought it appropriate to leave GG a notice, and did so. ''']''' (]) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
	This is what I see: Hayabusa2938's only edits were vandalism, including a disruptive, deceitful comment on the talkpage of a BLP. Hayabusa was also ] like ] (an already blocked user) and was thus blocked. Then this IP shows up, jumps head-long into this dispute and defends Hayabusa, using comments such as "wikipedia is indeed censored". Now I can't speak for ], but it looks like they don't like ducks. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ameliorate!''' <sub>] ] ]</sub> '''@'''</span> 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			*
	IP, for some reason you came to my talk page and lengthily defended both along with . Do I smell footwear in the laundry bin? Waterfowl in the pond out back? I'll still be more than happy to block you, if you like. ] (]) 00:41, 10 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)
	:Gwen, don't play with your food and don't feed the trolls. Playing with the trolls, on the other hand, is okay... as long as it's on your own talk page... I think. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
	::Excuse me. I take great exception to what both of you are saying.
	::Addressing things in the order that's easiest to address, was actually a mistake. At the time, there was a minor factual error in the article, which that editor was correcting on the talk page. (Apparently, Letterman made some stupid joke about a fictitious brother "ment-ally ill", and the article confused it with another nickname of Jong-il himself. That editor was just pointing out the mistake in the talk page) Gwen made an (honest) goof, and deleted the person's comment, confusing it with nonsense. I left a note on her talk page that, even though it was obviously just a mistake, she should still be a bit more careful. I then worked with another editor who saw the notice on her talk page to improve the article (namely, we decided to remove the whole stupid section from the article, since neither of us felt it belonged).
	::Gwen knows full well that this was the context of that note, and yet she's chosen to call it a "meaningless shred". I don't know what she even means by that, but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that she misread something, and mistakenly deleted a good faith comment on the talk page.
	::Secondly, I never defended ''any'' vandalism/disruption/anything-else. I some minor notes about what she'd said.
	::*She said someone had forged their signature. That was false. It probably ''was'' a sock, but that isn't the same as a forged signature. For someone who seems fond of talking about ducks, it seems strange that ''she'd'' take exception to using the right words to describe people. (a sock is a sock, not a forger)
	::*Since I was talking about the subject anyways, I ''did'' point out that it really wasn't appropriate to lock a person's talk page just for insulting you personally. '''note''': I didn't say that his page shouldn't have been locked. ''That'' would've been defending him. I just said that someone else should've done it. Tell me, who here ''does'' feel that an admin should be the one to punish people who insult them personally? Nobody? I thought not.
	::*After then commenting on how particularly offensive it was or wasn't, I then pointed out (to Cdogsimmons) that the comment didn't belong on that article talk page anyways, since it wasn't constructive (thus defending Gwen's position). I ''assume'' Gwen didn't take offense to that. She's yet to be particularly specific about what, if anything, I've done wrong, so I still don't know.
	::*I then told Cdogsimmons that he could see the deletion logs for articles himself (thus dispelling the myth that admins were entirely 'disappear'ing articles). This was to defend admins in general. Again, I ''assume'' that nobody here has a problem with that, but I'm really starting to wonder here.
	::*Finally, I very briefly defended the deletion of the article being referred to (against the point of mythstory/hayabusa). Perhaps ''this'' is where Gwen thought I was defending hayabusa? By suggesting that he was wrong? I have no clue; she never explained herself very well.
	::Simply put, I find it both disconcerting and tiring that IP editors are treated with such disdain.
	::I've been threatened with a block, and not a ''single'' person has yet to explain how that would have been ''remotely'' warranted.
	::I've been insulted, and called a troll, with no explanation of how that could possibly apply to me.
	::Gwen has ''lied'' (and I do ''not'' use that word lightly!) in saying that I defended hayabusa. (If you think I'm wrong, find a diff. Until you provide one, do ''not'' accuse me of doing things I never did!)
	::I've then been threatened with ''another'' block, by someone who's still yet to identify a ''single'' thing I've actually done wrong. Not a violation of any WP policy, not a violation of any rule of thumb, or general preferred behaviour. ''Nothing''. You want to ignore me? Fine. But do ''not'' threaten me with a block unless you plan to have a bloody reason for it (and how insane is it that I even need to say that?). Do ''not'' call me a troll, or a defender of vandals, unless you have something to back it up.
	::For any logged-in editor, you need to provide diffs before you start throwing around accusations and insults (and even then insults aren't preferred). Why should that be different for IP editors? ] (]) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			== 96.230.143.43 ==
	== Help needed at ] ==
			This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Several hundred images have been tagged by {{User|FairuseBot}} for lacking a fair use rationale and added to ]. I am not arguing with the mass tagging, but I would like to request that other editors do what they can to add appropriate fair use rationales to keep the images from being deleted. I have added a few, but I can't do them all. --] (]) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I ''think'' there is a gadget that helps to add fair use rationales to articles, but I've never used it, so I don't know what it is. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I assume you mean ]. It's a great tool. ] (]) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
	:::(ec) Yes, ]. But you need to know what you are doing to use it. Using it poorly is worse than not using it at all. ] (]) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Less than half of the images are in danger of being deleted: most of the images have fair-use rationales for at least one use, so FairuseBot will come along in five days and remove them from articles without a fair-use rationale and from the category. --] (]) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
			::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== StoneX Group Inc. ==
	== Can an admin take a look at a multiple article AfD please ==
			I’m concerned about the page at ]
	At the moment this ] is dealing with several articles at once, however both myself and another editor are unhappy with the articles being grouped together for the reasons stated in the AfD. I think it would be best if this one was nipped in the bud before too much discussion had taken place (it's generating a fair bit of interest) and the AfDs listed seperately (which is obviously best dest by an admin as it would be a possibly controversial early close). Obviously this is only my personal opinion and a reviewing admin may disagree but I thought it best to raise it here as if splitting is to occur it's obviously better to do it before there's too much discussion. ] (]) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Suspected hoax ==
			:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Permissions Removal ==
	The article ] appears to be a hoax, I have prodded it, but should it be an AfD (which could be closed more quickly, I understand)? ] (]) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I have AFDd it. ]. On a side note, twinkle is doing extremely odd things when sending things for AFD at the moment, anyone know why? ] (]) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	::I have deleted the article as an ]. It was not supported by a single source, as was likely an attack on some unknown individual. I know he was supposed to be dead, so I ignored some of the rules. I have assumed that there is likely some unknown target this was aimed at. ] (]) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Scandalpedia ==
			:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Presenting the latest Misplaced Pages rip-off: ''''''. It's actually a campaign site of the ] for the ]. --] (]) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
			== ftools is back! ==
	::Oh. A ]. ] (]) 01:51, 10 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)
	== Edit section links on this page broken? ==
	Is it just me, or do the edit section links lead to the wrong sections? ] (]) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)		:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This happens when, as you click on a section edit link, a previous section is removed, or an additional section is added somewhere above the section you are trying to edit. Usually it's because a section or sections have been archived. ] (]) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Oops, my mistake. Just never come across that before. Must have been just after archiving then, it was many, many sections out. Sorry to bother. ] (]) 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 23:15, 9 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	22	20	42
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	7	5	12
RfD	0	0	37	10	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 25 sockpuppet investigations
• 26 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 53 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 15 requested closures
• 43 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 12 Copyright problems

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

  That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. Spicy (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request removal of PMR/Rollback

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

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

---

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

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

---

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exact text from the source is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emoji redirect

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

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

---

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

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

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

Topic ban appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andra Febrian report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

---

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

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

Cannot draftify page

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

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

---

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

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

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

Remove PCR flag

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

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

---

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

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

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

"The Testifier" report

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

Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

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

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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

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

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

---

repost from archive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.

• To who would this be a threat?
• Which law?
• In which country?

Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I am glad you asked.

• to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
• It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
• The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.

Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

  — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

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

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

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

• From WP:EW; Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.

In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.

I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.

Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.

Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.

And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

Call for mentors

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

I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. JayCubby 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.

I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation

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

Deleted contributions request

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

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

---

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

@JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJP_Master (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: The import and merge are  Done. Please delete the page now. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. User:Cyanxbl) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

Are they the same person? The date of birth (for Chaudhary Sher Ali) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: diff) it's different... Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one, it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), it's quite possibly a waste of time.

That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32, this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. Liz 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a WP:TNT kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.

I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a proposed merge, instead of here? WaggersTALK 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

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)

Hide this racist edit.

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

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

---

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

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

That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. WaggersTALK 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to m:SRM, if there are no active RMYWP admins available. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

96.230.143.43

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)

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

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)

ftools is back!

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

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

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards