Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:56, 13 September 2008 view sourceFayssalF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users43,085 edits Thanks for your co-operation and understanding a) 'unproductive newcomers' and b) 'established unproductive users'← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:04, 9 January 2025 view source Nthep (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators110,688 edits Adding {{pp-vandalism}}Tag: Twinkle 
(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 = 168
|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)
:{{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)

:::Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border: solid 2px #c04040; margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; padding: 4px; text-align: center; font-size:small; background-color: #ffdddd; margin: 1em">'''ATTENTION''': ''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.''' ''
</div>
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)
: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)

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}}
--] (]) 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)

<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>

] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

: '''Note:''' ] ], <small>]</small> 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
===Color as an issue (convenience section break)===
* 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)
** 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)

:::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)

:::: As I have said, I have no problem with the link and am only taking issue with the colouring here. "Subtle"? The template might not be as ugly and overwhelming as the page-wide banner that started this thread, but with the red sidebar it is still glaring. This is a maintenance template, and the specific colouring downright violates the colour-code on which the entire ambox system is founded, in this case imitating a template which means "this page is up for deletion". Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent as far as disclaimers are concerned, because there is no reassurance that the usage of a template feature which is, after all, available to everyone, will remain restricted. In any case, arguments have already been made that it is impossible to draw a clear line between events which would "deserve" extra care of this kind and events that would not, relying on the type and intensity of a disaster; the measure can even spill into other areas implicating danger. We are an encyclopaedia; if people prefer to trust us and the Internet in general instead of their own authorities for information, or at least their local television station, that is their problem, and the many-times-more people around the world reading the article should not be forced to endure such distractions, which only seem to be afforded to Americans anyway. We should have priorities, and our mission is to be an encyclopaedia. We record, we do not advise—especially with geographic bias. ], <small>]</small> 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think I see your points, let me know if I get these wrong. First that the red color is contrary to the rules explained at the {{tl|ambox}} template documentation. Secondly, that ''when'' to change the template color is necessarily a matter of judgement.

:::::For your first point, I'm not attached to the color red- just so long as the template looks different enough to attract attention so a hurried person may be more likely to follow the link to our hazard disclaimer.

:::::There is merit to your second point. For tropical storms the red option is being used when warnings are posted, when there's a current threat to human life- but not every disaster is so neatly organized. Floods and earthquakes come to mind as events where I can't see when the "right" time would be to change the template's color.

:::::As for geographical bias- well I was the person who brought up that point in the first place. The template was being used on ] until this morning, though.

:::::I suppose that if we changed the font size/style in the box, that might make it noticeable without changing the color. Would that be a reasonable compromise? &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:The template should not be red, since that means the page is about to be deleted. What we ''can'' do and still be within the ] for the use of article message boxes is to change the icons or even use yellow minor warning colour or even orange major warning colour. See my examples over at ]. But just as a teaser, here is one of the examples:
{{ambox
| type = style
| image = ]
| imageright = ]
| text =
'''This article documents Hurricane ASDF, a ].''' <br> Information regarding it may change rapidly as it progresses. Though this article is updated frequently, it ] the most current or official information about this tropical cyclone for all areas.
}} }}
:--] (]) 09:47, 10 September 2008 (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)
::There were complaints before about use of an exclamation point image- too much like a disclaimer. I think yellow or orange would be fine if the ambox wikiproject doesn't find it objectionable. &mdash;] <small>(] ])</small> 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
::: I find yellow an acceptable compromise. How is it to be used, however? Will the blue be retained as the proper colour, keeping for the yellow the same arrangements that now exist for the red (special option), or will it be the standard colour for the template? Neither prospect thrills me; I prefer blue for the template, but I also want consistency and no subjective choices. What can I say, though... We live in a dangerous world. ], <small>]</small> 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Nice, but a little wordy for my taste. How about:
{{ambox {{abot}}
| type = style
| image = ]
| imageright = ]
| text =
'''This article documents Hurricane ASDF, a ].''' <br> Information about the storm may change rapidly, and this article ] the most current or official information.
}}
::::] (]) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
:::::I don't like the idea of such a template without noting that the article is frequently updated. Otherwise, we're basically saying, "We're too lazy to update it, so go the the NHC if you want correct information about the storm". &ndash;] ] ] 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
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 ==
:::::: I agree. This version is inaccurate. ], <small>]</small> 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::::It's noncommittal and deliberately so. Since this is meant as a general-purpose template we can't make any promises that every future article on a TC will be "updated frequently." ] (]) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:


== Sceptre block evasion == === Evidence ===
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.
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:
– 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.
*{{user|TUATW}}
– 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.
*{{user|Gridlocked Caravans}}


4.
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.
- 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.
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.
- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.


] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


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


=== Context ===
Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
*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)
- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.
: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 have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
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)
] 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>
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)


: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)
::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)
::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)
:::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)
:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
::::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)
:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
::::We 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)
:*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)
::::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)


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)
:::Just out of curiosity, what should be made of ? An at least one of these points to redlinked cat.
{{abot}}
::: 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)


== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
=== Suggestion ===
{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
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)
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.
: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)


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.
: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)


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


] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (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>


: 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 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)
: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 ==
: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)
{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (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)
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)
:::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)
{{abot}}
:::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)


== Topic ban appeal ==
::::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)


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)
:::::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)


: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)
:::::::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)
::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 ==
::::::::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)
{{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)
:::::::::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)
::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
::::::::::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)
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
:::::::::::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)
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
::::::::::::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)
{{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 ==
:::::::::::::(comment from the sidelines...)
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::::::::::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)
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 ==
===It's nice to see that double standards are alive and well===
{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== "The Testifier" report ==
If this was an ordinary user that no one knew, they'd be blocked indef, no questions asked. ] (]) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (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)


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
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)
{{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)
===(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)


: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)
:::::(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) ::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (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) :::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 ==
*'''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)
***That is a demonstrable lapse of maturity rather than any effort to offend aforesaid groups, I would have to look through diffs but he has strongly stood up for both groups in the past. Having taught 15- and 16-year-olds in a classroom environment, I'm well aware of the complete lack of thought that goes through their heads sometimes in the chase to score a point. This sort of thing is what I hope mentorship from a respected Wikipedian could assist with. ] 12:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
===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 - Not opposed to unblocking entirely per some comments below mine. I personally think a 2 month block would be appropriate, and 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)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
====Maintain indefinite ban====
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
*Krimpet
*<s>Wknight - Waiting for an apology/ some sign of repentance</s>
*KnightLago
*I think my double standard patience has been reached, I would not mind a '''community indef. ban'''. --] (]) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


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


] '''CheckUser changes'''
====What happened to the mentorship issue?====
:] {{hlist|class=inline
*Given the behaviour since this dust-up began (RfC etc.), I feel the need for a mature, sober mentor is more appropriate than length of block. Essentially block is indef until he gets an appropriate mentor. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
::Agreed that mentorship from someone the community holds in respect is very important in this user's case. ] 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
=== Suggestion ===
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
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)
:::::Because he is a good faith, albeit impulsive, user and the preference would be to have him back and editing productively, albeit with better standards of personal negotiation and possibly avoiding loci of intense drama which he sometimes gets drawn into. Creating a situation where he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, rather than creating a situation where if he behaves appropriately he gets some (maybe eventually all) of his privileges back, does not create an incentive to behave, but rather an incentive to disrupt as he can't face any harsher consequence than he already has for doing such. (I'm not assuming bad faith here, you could insert *any* person's name there and it would apply.) The fact that he was indef-blocked over such a petty matter to begin with also in my view mitigates the situation. ] 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
=== Ban vs Block ===
:] {{hlist|class=inline
Since most people editing here are admins, I figure they all know the difference between ban and block. But the votes tallied use the term "ban". So that means he'll end up community banned? As for his block evasion, I believe he's addicted to wikipedia and can't just leave it for several months. So there should be compassion. But if he ever is allowed back he should never get rollback because he really really likes to abuse it. ] (]) 06:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
: Even as someone with quite a positive view of him, I'd have to agree that giving him rollback wouldn't be the brightest of ideas. ] 06:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
::Personally, I think the belief that Sceptre is simply going to disappear for three months is naive. We're talking about somebody who over the last three months (June, July, and August), made 6600 edits and didn't go a single day during that time without making at least one edit (he made 14676 edits during the three months prior to that). Yet we're somehow shocked that he evaded the initial block within a day or two? That's not to say I don't support the block, but if we're going to tack on an extra month every time we catch a Sceptre sock, we might as well go ahead and make it indefinite. - ] ] 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
:::I'm rather inclined to agree with your first sentence, but do not have a clue what to do about it. Mentorship is always a bonus, but the pre-emptive creation of sleeper socks worries me rather. ] (]) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
::::Whoa, whoa, whoa. We should let him back in because he's 'addicted'? Yeah, no. ] (]) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
:::::some notes. 1. These aren't votes, this is not a democracy, we are gauging opinion. 2. I probably used the terminology wrong because I don't really care. To me the message is clear "stop editing wikipedia, come back in X months. 3. I take Auburn pilot's post simply to mean "There is reason to believe that this sort of remedy will not work. Maybe we should think of something else. 4. Who has suggestions for how to deal with Sceptre in a fashion that isn't a series of blocks, bans, etc? More importantly, are any of you willing to step up to the plate and deal with it?--] (]) 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
}}
::::::No, I definitely don't advocate letting him back in simply because he's addicted, but I don't think the "bag and tag" approach will work with somebody like Sceptre. Tznkai's reading of my comment is dead on; I think this is a situation where the standard remedies will not work. - ] ] 14:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:] ]
(outdent) Here is an idea, and please feel free to shoot it down in flames, I prefer examining "out of the box" ideas harshly so as to identify problems with them: We could ask Sceptre for his opinion. He has experience; he knows himself. We can ask him if he thinks he's mature enough to acknowledge his sleeper socks, and what remedies he suggests would be most likely to result in the best overall outcome for Misplaced Pages. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:Makes sense. He is last I checked, ignoring his talk page, so I'll keep an eye out for him on IRC. That doesn't solve one problem though, is anyone here willing to step up and take charge of watching over Sceptre if a more mentor-ship like program goes through? I'd volunteer myself, but I don't think I have the unimpeachable reputation required for it.--] (]) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Same, although with me it's the time factor - I'm a uni student and soon to be full time worker. I'm happy to assist anyone who does though. ] 18:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Re mentorship, I proposed a few names of those who are known for civility and maturity, namely ], ], and ]. AFAIK he made efforts to contact someone, don't know who. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


</div>
== Recurrent IP vandalism on ] ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
{{Resolved}} Done. &mdash; ]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;] 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
See . Suggest temporary semi-protection. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:31, 8 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}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
:Please add this to the ] Thanks ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
::{{RFPP|semi|1 month}} Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. ] ] 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
::::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)
}}}}

<!--
== Temporary unprotection of ] ==
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}

<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
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)
:Didn't see the plan before, looks like an interesting idea. ] (]) 06:31, 11 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)
: <s>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>
:: In view of the justifications provided since my comment, I'm happy to support the block. Thank you to those involved for providing more detailed reasoning. ] 06:11, 10 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)
::::::::Sorry Corvus for the confusion because I didn't get it at first. There was no leniency. At the opposite, it was me who without even using the CU tool. I could even bring a year-old memory back to life. Everybody then for his reaction to my comment. He then '''apologized''' for the comments but said nothing about his possible connection to other disrupters. And of course I his obvious sock {{user|0oors}}. -- ] / <small>]</small> 04:18, 10 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)

===The whole detailed case and seeking community opinion===
'''Note:''' I'll be using alphabetical letters to refer to the accounts, pending opinion of the community.

Back to you guys. The case was left at the point where NoC is blocked for 2 weeks for being connected to the IP who left the Nazi and Islamist Jihadist flag on ]'s userpage. As everybody knows, NoC claims to have retired. To the dismay of many, I must say "not really, he's still among us."

'''Yesterday,''' while digging further, I discovered another account used by ] (NoC). While reviewing and double checking this case another account X belonging to this user was found. The account X returned editing a couple of days ago after a long wiki-break. This suggests that NoC was expecting my block because he knew what he did. X started editing almost 2 years ago (end of 2006) but stopped earlier this year. X and NoC have many shared interests of course.

Well, as you know, I had notified the ArbCom yesterday of the case of NoC and in parallel I asked the CheckUser team to verify the findings and the connection with the newly discovered X. Again, positive from Alison and Lar today. I thought that the tracing would stop ''just'' there. And because of the insistence of the community above I found myself digging further which led to the discovery of X.

'''Today,''' while preparing this report, I went copying diff and checking history files of X. To my surprise, I found out that X used an old account Y. More digging led to the fact that Y started editing on mid-2006 but stopped before the redirection. The first edit ever of Y was a query posted at a former user W (unrelated) asking him why he left him a vandalism warning early 2006 (supposedely a warning by W to Y). This obviously means that Y had another prior account. This also means that W had left that supposed warning on early 2006. But to whom? I couldn't find out as, in fact - as W responded to Y, there was no such edit. I verified and it was true. There was no such warning at all!

This whole case suggests that NoC is in fact an established user who at least started editing on spring 2006. As it is clear now, NoC had at least 2 other accounts. However, none of these accounts were/have been disruptive apart from the IPs used by NoC (like redirecting BetaCommand's userpage and the recent anti-semitic edit on Einsteindonut's userpage). We are dealing here with an established user and not merely with NoC who claims falsly to have retired.

It seems clear that NoC used to start and abandon accounts (no big reasons at all since none of them were ever blocked). What I am seeking here? Your opinion. Do the community think that blocking NoC indef (the account has retired anyway) and leaving X (who returned editing though there's a block evasion) but blocking Y (account inactive) would be a wise decision here or does the community have another say on this? I ask this because apart from harassing Betacommand (three times I believe) and the recent case of Einsteindonut, the person behind the accounts has never been disruptive or sockpuppeting ''per se'' or abusively. True, he said he retired after staring to use X again but I prefer your opinion. If the community decides to take action as described above, I'll do it. If not, I'll be blocking NoC indefinitely instead and move on. -- ] / <small>]</small> 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Starting and abandoning accounts is one thing - I've done it four or five times (to avoid building a reputation) - block evasion is another. I'm not an admin, I just made an observation earlier on, and this sort of blocking isn't anything I have enough experience of to be able to justify having a strong opinion either way. On the one hand, it would be difficult to make an argument that a block of X would be anything other than punitive - on the other, the IP edits were pretty disgraceful. ] (]) 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, there's no problem with starting and abandoning accounts. Cases in which I have supported such in the past involve either quite young users who deserve a second chance and have demonstrably improved since the sins of their original incarnation were a problem, or users who leave their original identity in good faith (be it due to real life threats, poorly considered initial nick, whatever). ] or ] are the main occasions when doing such is problematic. ] 06:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:My view is that a block for the harassment would be appropriate, and then allow him to edit restricted to one account, and if he breaks that, he's looking at a longer or indefinite block. Reason being only that I'm not absolutely sure this behaviour has been addressed before with this user, and it is not at a high order of disruption (although would be if continued). ] 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for doing more work on this Fayssal. In my view, restriction to one account might be needed, though maybe this is not needed if the accounts are not being abused, because I think you said that abuse has only been through IP editing. In other words, as long as people remain aware of the connection between the alternate accounts, then possible future abuse can be detected. At the moment, only a few Checkusers know the names of the linked accounts, right? Possibly the options are: (1) restriction to one account; or (2) any alternate accounts must be openly declared on the user pages because of concerns over this behaviour of logging out and editing as an IP (ie. the IP editing indicates that alternate accounts might be abused in the future). If the editor doesn't want to reveal the alternate accounts, then restriction to one account might be the only option. More generally, though, I believe that logging out and editing as an IP to avoid scrutiny is actually fairly common (I think it should be banned - but people sometimes claim the software logged them out, and that can happen, and also, IPs can turn up perfectly innocently and genuinely be an anonymous or new user, not a logged-out account). Given that abusive logged-out IP editing is fairly common (in my view), I'm wondering what is the normal course of action when someone is caught logging out to edit as an IP? I wouldn't want this case to be handled differently to previous ones. Does the action depend on (a) the nature of the IP edits; and (b) whether the named account admits to the edits? I ask this because at least some of the IP edits here were particularly unacceptable, and because the account named by the checkusers has denied making these edits. In the past, I've seen the IPs temporarily blocked (softblocked or hardblocked I can't remember), but no follow-up checkuser done (would that be fishing?). Could someone point me to a page, if it exists, where the phenomenon of "logged-out IP editing" and the responses to it, are documented? ] (]) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is more complicated than it appears Carcharoth. It is not only about logging on/off or abandoning accounts only. If the accounts usernames were known to you, you'd have another thought about it I believe. You'd be able to verify any edit you'd like. -- ] / <small>]</small> 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Not quite sure what you mean here. Verify? You mean check that the accounts weren't abusive socks? If I knew, then yes, but as only Checkusers know, they have to do that work. Presumably that sort of thing gets discussed on the CU mailing list? ] (]) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

====Updates: More oddities - this seems like a never-ending investigation====
Again, I am still discovering. Up to this moment, I am thinking of a very weird case of a good/bad account(s) scenario dealing with anti-semitism. Reason? Nothing is clear yet. May it be someone compromising his IPs? Very hard to verify this. I am having a look at an old sockpuppet which stopped editing a while ago. I suppose we'll call this one Z. Both Z and X fought anti-semitism. -- ] / <small>]</small> 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Is it possible that the more complex the investigation, the more likely it is that the wrong connections start to be made? What I mean is that if you depend on making 8 correct deductions based on the checkuser evidence, is there more likelihood that one of them is wrong than if the case only involves 2 connections and deductions? ] (]) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::This was very easy to spot. No CheckUser was used for this. This finding comes from (admins only). Now admins know about the username of Z. -- ] / <small>]</small> 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, OK. You mean the "creating doppelganger account to quell unrest :-p" and "Created doppelganger account" bits? As I said a few minutes ago, I'll be away for the rest of the day, but as long as the connections are all firm, that's fine. Any case is only as strong as its weakest link, after all. ] (]) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

====The bottom line...The ''final score''====
After all the digging, this is the story in brief (with all updates). If we had just stopped somewhere and everybody agreed with my 2 weeks block it would have been great. But well!

It appears that all the accounts of this guy have always fought anti-semitism. He even sockpuppeted once to fight it (one of the oddities now clarified)! The IP did just the opposite a couple of days ago (please let's not argue about this anymore since NoC apologized in private - see below). It is like liking someone all the time but throwing a stone at that person once from behind a curtain anonymously for unclear reasons (now clarified below). I am therefore going to block NoC and Z. I'll be keeping X. I cannot block Y because of privacy reasons (it is his real name). I am sure it won't be used anymore anyway.

'''Words of NoC'''... ''Yes, I've edited as an IP. Yes, I messed with Beta's userpage and yes, I messed with Einsteindonut's page. No, I'm not an antisemite. I did it because Beta is insufferable and Einsteindonut is a blatant POV pusher/dramamonger. Was it a good idea to do this? No, and I'm sorry I did it. And the other petty vandalism I did as an IP, I'm also sorry about. For the most part, I did it to see what it was like being on the other side. As you probably noticed, I've actually fought antisemitism and regularly revert, warn and report vandals.''

''I have zero intention of vandalizing or causing anyone any more distress and like I said I'm shocked it's gone this far. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on it. I figured you would have just blocked the account and moved on by now. I'm not going to use the NoC account anymore since everyone now thinks it's operated by a Nazi/Jihadist.''

'''Important note''': Both ] and NoC have asked me to protect their privacy. I've responded to both of them positively. So please, let's stop this mess right here and thanks to everyone for their time here. -- ] / <small>]</small> 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds like the best way out. I assume you've told said user to stick to one account and keep you informed of it (or something similar)? I notice the mention of previous socking.
:It's a shame, cause I was all curious after that last section :) ] (]) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Fayssal for your thorough work here. It struck me as strange that the IP associated with the NoC account would make anti-semitic edits, gien the user's history in standing up against anti-semitism. The explanation/apology by NoC goes a way toward explaining how this happened and I find the tone sincere. I'm not against allowing NoC to keep one of his other accounts since he has acknowledged the disruption and pledged not to do it again. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Admins cannot do this job fairly and accurately if concerned users refuse co-opearting and keep denying. We could have blocked this user indefinitely (as some people suggested reasonably) and close this file but his late co-operation made it succeed. This is an opportunity to advice all users who may find themselves in similar situations: ''if you do something wrong, don't deny it. Be open, apologize (including to the victim) and promise not to do it again.'' That would have saved everyone's time as well.
:NoC will keep one account only. He was the one who suggested that to me indeed. But, as in any other case, you cannot know if someone is using sockpuppets if there's no reason for suspicion. How would we know if they would be non disruptive and not for double-voting and edit-warring? We won't care indeed. He can still have alternative accounts but he should at least communicate them to me or to the ArbCom for transparency.
:Note that his words above constitute only like 20% of his complete e-mail. I only posted the necessary. Most of the rest consisted of private information that I cannot post here or communicate to anyone of course. -- ] / <small>]</small> 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I see no reason, now as before, to question your judgements, but many reasons to thank you for all that meticulous work, in a spirit of scrupulous fairness. Thank you. ] (]) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Sounds like I'm late to the party, but I agree that 1 account and further monitoring is a good course of action. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'll be honest: It makes me somewhat uncomfortable having a long-term member of our community who has admittedly vandalized, lied, harassed editors and abused multiple accounts. My primary concern is that they attempted to maintain the charade right up until the time they were caught red-handed. Were is not for Fayssal’s excellent investigative skills, it seems likely this behavior would have continued.
::::That being said, I, too, trust Fayssal’s judgment on this matter. Though the ends do not justify the means, it seems clear this user has the best interests of the Project at heart and simply made some ''very'' poor decisions. Going forward, I will further trust Fayssal (and others above my pay grade) to monitor this user “X”, via checkuser when necessary, and take firm action should it ever by required. Everyone deserves a second chance, but for decisions as flawed as these, only ''one'' second chance. Thanks to all for the hard work clearing this mess up. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm concerned about one thing, the precedent set. There are other editors with similar behavior, i.e., good hand account, bad hand account, or IP bad hands, but the connection may be better concealed. One of these editors looking at this can think, "Okay, I can continue to do this, no problem. If I'm identified, I'll apologize, and I won't be blocked as long as my main account isn't disruptive. And it takes a lot of effort to find me, so probably I'll never be caught." My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate. I am not in favor of automatically blocking a non-disruptive account, no matter what the IP and socks have done. The separation shows that the user has the capacity to know what is disruptive and what is not; but the question would remain if the user could abstain from being disruptive if the option of anonymous vandalism isn't there to blow off steam. I think this is a question which should not be decided by a single admin or even arbitrator. The basic, essential "penalty" for abusive socking should be exposure, and, to summarize, avoiding exposure is enabling the behavior. It's not punitive, it is a natural consequence. --] (]) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::My only concern with this outcome is that it's going to be up to the checkusers to keep an eye on this user, particularly the un-named real-name account. If they're okay with that, I am. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Given that over 6000 checkusers are run each month, and RFCU certainly isn't that long, and given what I hear on the grape vine, a lot of CUing is monitoring and keeping up on old/longterm issues. I'm inclined to agree with Fayssal that we should let him try again, if only because further screw ups will certainly lead to an uncontestable ban. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Extra, EXTRA late to the party here--didn't know of this thread til I saw it referenced in the block log. I am absolutely flabbergasted that NoC would do this, and I will no longer be so quick to speak up for supposedly "good" editors in future cases. I am really disheartened by this incident. Excellent job, Fayssal, on the evidence-gathering; wish it hadn't been necessary, though. My apologies for doubting. ] 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::There is nothing to apologize for, especially for defending someone you have a strong working rapport with. It turned out ugly, and turned out to be what you couldn't believe it ''could'' be, but nothing to apologize for. One man's opinion here. I've defended many a user that I have/had solid rapport's with (does that make me cabalish? egads...), and until the muddy waters settle, it's hard to see clearly. You did nothing wrong Gladys. ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

===Addressing concerns===
I've just responded to ]'s concerns on my talk page. I think it would be helpful if I just post some of my response here. The following also addresses some of the concerns raised above. Please feel free to comment.

:I fully understand your concerns very well. At the absence of complete evidence people use to have legitimate questions. I'd have done the same... ask and present my concerns. I hope my following points would help clarify the whole issue and give you some answers:

:* I'll start with this... True, what I posted on AN is ''my'' decision. However, as you may understand from above, the decisions can be challenged, tweaked, changed depending on people's opinions. We could have just decided it in private (ArbCom). At the opposite, I have tried to involve as much people as possible. I've sent requests to a dozen of people who had commented on the issue before. The discussions are still open over here. For instance - and regardless of the lack of ''complete'' evidence, people can still judge the case based on what we have as public knowledge. All what I have done is to try to balance between transparency, decision sharing and privacy. This is not an easy task. One must be very careful. Any small mistake and you'd be - and put concerned people - in big troubles. In brief, the ''final'' decision is still up to the community. I took action and have no single problem if people decide otherwise. I've never argued about people opposing my decisions (I argued sometimes but with tiny minority views judging my decisions). But telling people that it is a decision set on a stone would be nonsense, especially when it is not an ArbCom decision.

:* CheckUsers have confirmed the findings.

:* The ArbCom is fully aware of all particular details of this whole case. The ArbCom is fully aware of {{user|Einsteindonut}}'s case as well. The latter will be reviewed per user's request with whom I am in contact in private. It doesn't make sense for an admin to review his own blocks but he wants me to do it. I hope some other admins help me here even though a couple of admins have already declined his unblock request. Can anyone help me with this?

:* Most of relevant details are public knowledge. IP attacks are public knowledge. NoC's contributions are public knowledge. You can see NoC here reporting an anti-semite incident. The other account I blocked (referred to as Z) is also public knowledge (since it was used to redirect NoC's userpage once) and it can be found on my . He did the same (check contribs for reporting an anti-semitic incident). So, everyone (including unregistered users) can verify the edits starting from the first one. The account I left unblocked (referred to as X) did the same as well and it is private knowledge (only ArbCom and CheckUsers know about it and its contributions). I, therefore, believe that there's no need for the community to worry about the absence of ''complete'' evidence.

:* For the rest (very important)... These are very sensitive cases. The sensitivity is related to the privacy of both users. I, of course, understand and totally agree with privacy concerns. Both users have requested their privacy to be protected. They both have legitimate concerns (I won't enter in details but possible RL threats and harassment is a major concern for both of them - i.e. Nazi and Jihadist issues). I have given them positive responses. This may sound moot since Misplaced Pages, by default, has the obligation to protect all its users with all possible manners.

:* Abd, there was no abusive socking. ''My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate''... I totally disagree. Please read my point regarding privacy just above this one. And no, this is not a decision of a single admin or a single arbitrator. It is open for anyone to review it as you are doing now. And no, I disagree again when you say that such a decision would send a wrong signal to some users who may think that they can get away with it. Why? Simply because they'd know they would get caught sooner or later and I don't believe someone would like being investigated this way just for the sake of doing bad. It may be a precedent, yes. But think about it the other way around... "I would not like to be caught and being investigated". Also, this is precedent for a particular situation. In this case, the bad hand account was an exception and not a rule unless there are grounds for disbelieving the evidence and/or his confession. And please, if you have good reasons to suspect that there are users who operate good hand/bad hand accounts, please let us know about it.

:* Sheffield steel, it could be the other way around. He'd do it again before getting caught again. However, that doesn't mean that sanity checks ''are'' not and ''would'' not be processed. As for the real name un-named account, I must say that no single admin would divulge a real-name account is a similar situation (i.e. real-life threats - Nazis and Jihadists). Indeed, the account has stopped editing more than a year ago (this can be confirmed by both the ArbCom and the CheckUsers). I'd be able to recognize the name of this account if it would pop-up here or anywhere on Misplaced Pages even after 10 years - unless I'd retire before that. In other words, please be assured that it is under control.

:* Gladyz J Cortez, Keeper is totally right. -- ] / <small>]</small> 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me understand this. This NoC guy who has 2 or more other accounts admits that he vandalized another users page with hateful stuff and he gets only a 2 week block?! And, this is after lying about doing it in the first place?! That is pathetic. NoC should be banned for life. Is Misplaced Pages about information or about harrassment? ] (]) 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:For god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!! If you haven't understood anything from above then at leat try to understand something from below. I am not going to answer all new SPA accounts. It seems that you are new here to "fight bias" as you say... Administrators are already sick of people coming here for ]. Good luck, but listen to this very well:
:A few days ago, an IP (we now know it was NoC) left an anti-semite edit on another user page after a long bickering between the two and others as it appeared later on. He first denied that and lied after being questioned by administrators but when the offended user brought some links showing that NoC has edited the JIDF articles I blocked him for 2 weeks on the spot while pending investigation as nobody was sure of him being the one or not.
:While investigating, and after much digging (hard voluntary work which seems unvaluable especially when people like you come here relaxed protesting while sitting on a luxury chair), we could find out that NoC used to edit under his real-name account "A." No disruption with that account. He stopped editing with that account more than a year ago (go ask him why). He redirected it to the account "B". B stopped editing 6 months ago (go ask him why). No disruption. "C" was created as a sockpuppet and it was used to report anti-semitic attacks. It stopped editing after a while (go ask him why). He then started a new account "D" which is NoC. No disruption. As you see both A, B and C and D reported anti-semite incidents a couple of times. This guy says he is a Jew and he is not anti-semite (evidence shows that it is true) and he says he's done that because of the bickering of the offended (ask him why and how). That is not an excuse at all!!!!!!!! Now, you'd tell me "so what? He's still got to be banned if that is not an excuse at all." I say the following:
:C and D are indefinitely blocked. What about B and A? If people would see me banning B they would then be able to know WHO is "A" (a name for a real-person 0_0). What if 'Nazis' or 'Jihadists' decide to attack him? Would you come here trying to rub my back and tell me "ohhhh, sorry Fay... If I knew this story would end up this way, i'd have not insisted on crying loud to ban this offender"?????????????!!!! Does all this make sense to you? If not then I am sorry, I can't help answering your protests.

:P.S. In a nutshell!!!!! Other people have been banned for the same or even less. This case involve real-life identities. I can't listen to you. -- ] / <small>]</small> 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful answers, FayssalF. I, for one, am happy to trust you to take care of this. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Seconded SheffieldSteel. I apologise by the way if my initial comment to the matter caused any drama. ] 08:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thx for the explanation, Fayssal, just one single point of criticism: Editors are already sick of admins not caring about ]! ;-) ] (]) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your understanding and make sure that it is not the case here; I am sure everyone involved is fully aware of the ArbCom cases of ] and ] and probably ]. The only doubt I am having is whether newcomers are aware of ] and I believe this is the best opportunity to mention it. ] / <small>]</small> 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

===Thanks for your co-operation and understanding a) 'unproductive newcomers' and b) 'established unproductive users'===
a) I am here asking if there are reasonable people at JIDF who can be more responsible. Could you please guys, again, respect the privacy of people and leave my name there appearing on your website if that is necessary to prove a point? I am not asking the guy who wrote the nonsense and who used to never spell my name correctly (the guy who ''promised'' me and the ArbCom he'd re-read all of the policies and guidelines of this website before getting back fresh). Thanks.

b) ]... It seems that "'' primary interest is in the methods by which human communities communicate, coordinate, and cooperate''" can be exercised somewhere else (refer to lines below). I had said that I've never argued with people questioning my desicions reasonably. I also said that I '''only''' argue much with people who hold weird minority views -- like people calling for ''full disclosure of private information'' without having a single clue of what 'privacy' means. Please, improve your mainspace edits' percentage. AN/I is not a ] -- neither is Misplaced Pages (no soapboxing is acceptable). What are you doing here? I hope there were enough admins who could help but faced with such outing and off-site harassment, admins prefer to get back and watch. Well, now everyone can watch it. ] / <small>]</small> 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

== WikiVersity is an important resource that admins can use to help with conflict resolution ==

"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)
(<---)I mean that there is no rule there against it just as there is no rule there against three reverts. In practice that means that the rules lawyering that goes on at Misplaced Pages and the efforts here to concentrate on rule enforcement rather than on what best helps the project is missing from WikiVersity so that at WikiVersity people can revert four times and not be blocked and can source claim A and source claim B and conclude using logic that claim C is true. We prohibit that at WikiPedia for the good reason the it introduces POV pushing, undue weight, false claims and non-notable claims. At WikiVersity, people are allowed to research things. For example there is a project to create information that does not exist elsewhere on when specific species of plants flower, That is original research. It is a good thing for a 'Versity to do. ] (]) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


We now have a test case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Doctorlloydmiller&diff=237481056&oldid=237231373 ] (]) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:So at Wikiversity he can post his own research and so on. How is letting him edit over there helping Misplaced Pages? Your message linked above seems more about getting experts to join Wikiversity, than about helping conflict resolution on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:: It helps only in the way that transwiki of fancruft to fan wikis helps. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== Abuse Filter: Last call for objections ==

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 ].

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).

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.

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.

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)

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)
:How can an extension block an account? Rather, who would the block log say did the blocking? ] 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
A special pseudo-user called 'Abuse filter'. &mdash; ]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;] 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Voting moved to ].''' &mdash; ]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;] 09:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:Why? Since it is a community-wide discussion, it is certainly better to have it in a community-read location. ] (]) 10:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:No. Why are you moving the discussion to a low traffic place? ] (]) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:I've boldly bolded the move notice. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 10:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm boldy considerding moving it back. I may however, instead place notes on T:CENT and VPT. ] (]) 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused at the response. It's been on central discussion twice, on VPT twice, and I was just getting a sanity check by posting on AN right before posting to bugzilla. This was supposed to be a quick check to make sure there were no outstanding objections, not a massive straw poll. In any case, straw polls don't belong here. The notification should be here, with a link to the poll. That's how I see it, anyway. &mdash; ]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;] 12:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Policy Development ===
Where has the policy (who gets what rights, what rules get set, et cetera) been developed? Can someone point me to the page? ] (]) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:See <font color="amaranth">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>'''''<sub><font color="purple">]</font></sub> 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme) ==

{{unresolved}}
:Subpaged to ''']''' by ''']''' <sup>]</sup>
::Nuking the above timestamp so it doesnt archive right away. <font face="comic sans ms">] <small>]</small></font>

== Scandalpedia ==

Presenting the latest Misplaced Pages rip-off: ''''''. It's actually a campaign site of the ] for the ]. --] (]) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::Oh. A ]. ] (]) 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Larf. I can't think of any greater hypocricy than for the Liberal Party of Canada to be attacking others for their "scandals". ]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::Unfortunately I have to support them (scandals and all) since I am an anybody but Harper/Conservatives person and have to go for the lesser evil. -] (]) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Isn't there the NDP to support? (Then again I seem to recall they had a scandal a while ago...) ] 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::<small>note, as an Australian editor, the above post should be taken as entirely and deliberately random rather than an attempt to engage in serious political debate :) ] 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
::::lol. I'm glad for the note. ;) The NDP is completely unelectible in Alberta, which is where Djsasso and I are. ] would be a better choice. And I'm not joking, at least in my case. I won't speak for Djsasso. ]] 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::An NDP candidate isn't even running in my riding thats how unelectable they are here federally. It's Conservative, Liberal, Green or Canadian Action Party (which appears to just be some guy doing it for giggles based on his bio) -] (]) 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, I live in Canada but am not a citizen, so don't get a vote. This is just as well, as they all seem as bad as each other and I don't think I could choose any of them...... --] (]) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::LOL re doing it for giggles... that's what we have the LaRouchites for :)) I was just making the point that every party has scandals. Making jokes about other elections makes me feel better about ] (noting that the ] is like your Conservatives.) ] 07:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== Why is the ] article locked down? Not only that... ==

it reads like it is written by Al Gore and his cronies. It lacks a '''Criticism''' section. Other celebrities, such as ] have one. I have provided ''eleven'' (so far) sources that justify it having a criticism section. Currently, it is '''POV''' as it favors him and his "good side". ] (]) 10:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::I was going to place ''what'' I've found myself, but the article is '''locked down''', preventing that. All evidence is in the ''Talk Page'' of that article. ] (]) 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Can someone clean that up to make it NPOV as well? ] (]) 10:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::It's only protected against anonymous and new users. Any ] can edit it. ] ] 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Forgive me for saying but words like "cronies" and "good side" do not inspire much conviction in me that you are much more neutral. If you truly believe this cannot be changed by discussing it at ], you can request unprotection at ]. Whatever the outcome, this is the wrong place for it. ''']]''' 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Firstly, you should read ]. The vast majority of what you have linked does not fall into the 'reliable' category. Blogs and forum postings are unreliable, and opinion pieces are only reliable for the writer's view of a subject.
::::Secondly, there is a substantial amount of criticism in the "Post-Vice Presidency environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize" section, and in the article ].

::::Thanks, ] (]) 10:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::How many of those sources are "unreliable", etc.? ] (]) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The USA today one is an editorial, so the only thing it is reliable for is Peter Schweizer's views on Al Gore. The second one is a blog, and the author is not notable or relevant enough for their opinion to be notable in this context. The third and fourth links are broken. The mediamatters one is a reliable source for the statement 'Hannity is critical of Gore' but not for anything else. Fox News links are both broken. Williamtheimpeached is of course an unreliable attack site. Freerepublic forum postings, as with forum postings anywhere, are unreliable. AOL video link does not work for me. The realchange page is a load of unsupported allegations.
::::::::Something about your contributions here hints to me that your editing might not be entirely serious, however. ] (]) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Try the two FOX News links. Fixed them. ] (]) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it locked down? To prevent it from being hijacked by NPOV-agendists like yourself. It is protected against ''new users'' and those editing from an ''IP address'', and after looking at your intent here -- calling others "cronies" and then adding in ] such as blogs and right-wing web-sites (that of course are critical of Gore), you don't seem to be here to factually and neutrally add content regarding ]. You can always request ] but I doubt it'd pass. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
: And edits like only further my case. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::You mean edit --] (]) 15:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As this is our regular visit from ], I've removed his rantings from ] as not furthering the development of the article. Revert-Ignore, if not full-on RBI, seems to be the best approach here. &mdash; ] 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rantings aside, if I'm reading it right it's been semi'd for a year. That's much longer than it ever should be. It should be unlocked on general principles. ] (]) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Usual practice is to indef semi highprofile targets for persistant vandalism &c. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::Really? Where is that written down? What I see is semi protection to be used as a temporary measure and not used pre-emptively ] (]) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I have no idea. But the semi-protection on George W Bush, Muhammad, whatever have all been there forever - the moment they come off, they have to go back because the IP vandalism goes up, up, up. It's not pre-emptive, it's responsive and "for a long time", because it's needed "for a long time". ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Agreed. However, ] does say they should be unprotected from time to time, just to verify that anon disruption is still an issue. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:] or not, Al Gore ''is'' a "good guy" - and has a ] to ] it. This IP address user may be ] folks. The article (as its history shows) has been subject periodically to IP attacks. I support continued protection, or semi-protection, with periodic release from any level of protection, just to see if still needs protection. ] (]) 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::He arguably brought this on himself by inventing the internet. ] — ] 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== TERMINALFOUR Page - Request for Reinstatement ==

{{resolved|Draft moved to mainspace. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)}}

Hi

I've recently been hired by TERMINALFOUR to develop TERMINALFOUR's online web presence. I've noticed that the TERMINALFOUR page has been blocked because it didn't meet the standards of Misplaced Pages.

I would like to submit a compliant article under our trademarked name "TERMINALFOUR". I have created what I believe to be a factual and compliant article, which I'm happy to submit for your review.

Is there anything else I can do to assist in this? Thanks for your time! :) —Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) <!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Misplaced Pages isn't an advertising site. The fact that your page is factual doesn't mean that it's ]. Please read ] and ]. ] ] 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::As Od Mishehu says, you should read up on ] first. Then you can create an article somewhere in your userspace (at ] for example) and then ask for recreation after we all could have had a look at what you want to present. But I doubt it can satisfy ]. ''']]''' 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::OK, I've created ] for you guys to have a look at the content. We're open to any suggestions! :)] (]) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Do you mind if I go into the page and format it a bit? The reference list at the bottom is missing, so it's a pain to evaluate the sources at the moment. Thanks - ] (]) 15:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Not at all! Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks-] (]) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::In my opinion, the sources are good enough for an article to exist. However - you will need to rewrite the article a bit, focusing it around what the sources have to say about the company rather than about what the company has to offer. Sentences such as "Site Manager enables business users to create and manage large and complex websites, and to create and manage a suite of eForms / Self Service applications." have a very sales-type feel to them and are not very suitable for an encyclopaedia for that reason. I don't have time right now, but if you need some help reworking it I might be able to give some more concrete suggestions later. ] (]) 16:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::That would be great! I'll make the suggested changes above, and when you have a spare moment we can compare notes. Thanks again for your help] (]) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::]? I'm not sure which the correct capitalisations are, so I've toned it down a bit cause it hurt my eyes. ] (]) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::That looks fab! I can now see the difficulty with the initial copy, thank you so much for all your help so far. The caps in the company name are trademarked though, so they'll have to remain. I've made those changes for your review. You've been so helpful.:)] (]) 11:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: We don't use typographical conventions in trademarks unless they are overwhelmingly used by sources (like with ]). In general, that means that uppercase trademarks are presented in usual title case. ] - ] 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::: OK no worries! I've corrected that for review. ] Thanks :)] (]) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Thanks for everyone's help, especially Brilliantine!] (]) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This has to be a wind up - the company trademark comes top on google even above heathrow terminal four. I hardly think that is the sign that a company that needs to hire somebody to develop a web presence. ] (]) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

: Huh? it's practically a hallmark of it. Having a good WP page is an excellent SEO tactic. Being top Google hit for whatever doesn't guarantee notability. ] - ] 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some context - ] link/user/page info follows. ] 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

;Pages
*{{la|TERMINALFOUR}}
*{{la|TerminalFour}}

;Sites
{{spamlink|terminalfour.com}}
:

;Users
*{{UserSummary|Traffic 1}}
*{{UserSummary|Ptintori}}

* I'm tempted to mark this as <nowiki>{{resolved|No}}</nowiki>. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
** I see the temptation but the current draft looks interesting. It might meet ] (not quite sure. Right now my guess is it doesn't but there are many references used which appear to be indepedent sources). Anyways shouldn't this discussion be over at DRV?] (]) 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
***The content is not yet very good, but the sources undoubtedly establish sufficient notability to meet ]. References 1 & 3 especially are very in-depth and independent. I will attempt to work with Traffic1 as to the content. ] (]) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
****Yeah, the draft is now mainspace-worthy, and meets ] without breaking a sweat. It's not the best, but it's certainly good ''enough''; so I've moved it to mainspace. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could someone look at this? It's grown into a linkfarm cum meetup point for people of a particular political bent. I've a conflict of interest in that I've taken part in discussions on the page and cannot be regarded as neutral. Cheers, ]] 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:That doesn't belong there. I've deleted the section. If I were more rouge, I'd delete and salt that whole talk page; '''it's a talk page of a redirect from a misspelling, for God's sake'''. --] (]) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::Horologium, however, '''is''' more bold than I, and while I was whining he went and deleted it. Good move. --] (]) 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:I deleted it as G10/G8/WP:NOTMYSPACE and salted it. We're not going to have a hidden page on Misplaced Pages as a linkfarm to attack sites. ''']''' <small>]</small> 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, thou'rt kind. ]] 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

*I'm a bit confused. Aren't talk pages of non-existant articles candidates for speedy deletion? What makes this on an exception? Keep in mind I haven't read the contents as I don't want todragged into politics. I'm asking strictly from a policy/guideline perspective. Thanks. ] (]) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
** No. Talk pages of deleted pages are candidates for speedy deletion. That doesn't apply to talk pages of redirects. ] (]) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Any such redirect as ] does ''not'' need to be created. The only reason to create a redirect dealing in capitalization is to redirect to ''target'' article titles with mixed capitalization, e.g. '''I'''n ]he '''H'''eat ]f ]he '''N'''ight (novel). Can admins please nuke articles that are merely unnecessary redirects of the "Bristol palin" sort? They annoy the hell out of me. Thanks. ] (]) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== Palin-related articles still need watching ==

Our ] article still has a number of neutral editors watching it. Some other Palin-related articles could still use more editors watching them:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] -- occasional attempts to involve Bristol Palin
*]
**]
*]
*]
*]
*] -- some odd links posted
*]
I sense anti-Palin partisans are starting to get the upper hand, but we still have problems from pro-Palin partisans as well.

There are ].

Political related but not directly tied to Sarah Palin -- could someone look at ]. I'm out of editing time today but it looks problematic.

Finally, articles newly linked to ] appear at the bottom of ]. It would help to have some grown-ups checking this periodically. (Ditto for some of the other candidates).

There are the ], but I'll save them for another time …<br />--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:The list you offer above looks highly suspect. How on earth could one argue that ] needs watching because someone inserted one sentence about Alaska's latest policy towards wolves under Palin. This is a relevant point to the article, and the article, as well as others that you mentioned above, should be allowed to reflect such points.] (]) 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::Mmm, generally articles about general topics should not mention policies in various coutries unless they are somehow notable. We don't want to list every country/state that has wolves in it, and how they treat them. That is not the focus of the article. Anyway further disucssions about content should be redirected to the various talk pages of the specific articles. —— ''']]'''</font> 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The article has continent subsections, including one on North America, and as the only state with contiguous wolf territory, Alaska is the only state in the US in which wolves have never been endangered or threatened.] (]) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::], I'm not sure what you mean to imply by calling the list I posted "highly suspect". At various times, the Palin angle has received more much more weight on the wolf-hunting page for example. I'm just asking some more folks to add these pages to their watchlist. You certainly don't have to. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Please excuse my phrasing. It was not the nicest choice of words. ] (]) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:''Finally, articles newly linked to ] appear at the bottom of ]''. ← Not necessarily true.
:The links are in order of <tt>page_id</tt> e.g. 19096270 for ], 19261104 for ]. These are roughly in order of page creation (except for very old pages). It is not according to the date/time that the link was added as this info isn't stored anywhere (and can only be determined by comparing diffs).
:Linking to ] from a two-year-old page, for example, will cause that page to be listed somewhere in the middle of the list, not at the end.
:— ] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::I've watch-listed ] out of morbid curiousity. ] (]) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Charlotte, thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Historically Black College and University recruitment ==

Any suggestion on what (if anything) to do with ]? It does not seem to be about the project's involvement in Black College and University recruitment. It might be an essay. I don't know. -- ] (]) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:It appears to be a ] to recruit students and faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities to become Misplaced Pages editors. I'm not sure whether this is a legit essay topic. ] (]) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::]? ] (]) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone. ] (]) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:This dates from a time period when there were a lot of efforts to find more editors, particularly those with expertise. See ] for a much broader discussion. The points on that HBCU page are valid; I say tag it with {{tl|essay}} and let it stand. ] 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*Thanks for the feedback, all. The essay may "reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors" but may not be "a poor candidate for broadening" per ]. ] marked it as a historical effort, which seems to perfectly characterize the page. ] (]) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] being vandalized ==

the page ] has been vandalized three times in as many days. Any way I can get a semi-protect for a week or so? Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, never requested this before. ] (]) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, vandalism by anon IPs in all cases. Some include adding negative claims, all include large deletion. ] (]) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:The normal place is ], but they will probably tell you no unless you have a really good reason. 1 defacement a day is pretty slow for IP vandalism. With a few more people watchlisting it (I've got it listed now), the reversions should be pretty quick. ] (]) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

: Interestingly, the first revert claimed that the subject had stolen some academic ideas from ] and claimed them as his own. Cordeiro is Brazilian, and all those 3 vandalising IPs resolve to ... Brazil. <b>]</b> 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:I was going to say something about that too. My first thought was "someone doesn't like their new stats professor", but the brazil bit kinda threw me off. ] (]) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::I've semi-protected for a week. ] (]) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== Posting a photo ==

I am trying to post a photo for my boss on his Misplaced Pages page, but I've been blocked from doing so. I am not a regular contributor or editor to Misplaced Pages, and have no interest whatsoever in being a regular editor or contributor. I am merely trying to update a page that features my boss -- a California State Senator.

If anyone can provide me with some help -- I sure would appreciate it. Thank you,

Bill
:Responded on user's talk page. ] (]) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::{{done}} --]] 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Since the copyright of that image may be dubious (did the ''copyright holder'' release it under GFDL), and needs to be confirmed through OTRS, I uploaded ] as a potential backup. - ] ] 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I've already forwarded the permission to OTRS. ] (]) 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== Requesting review of ]'s block ==

{{vandal|Moulton}}

Having just had a detailed discussion with folk on the unblock channel in IRC, it was suggested that I come here for a(nother) out in the open, full 'n frank discussion of ]'s situation. It's been explained to me that our policies dictate that consensus is required in order to maintain the block. My reading of existing discussions (linked to from ]) is that there is no consensus for a block, and my understanding is that therefore the block should be lifted.
As a wise chap said though, consensus is a fickle animal - hence this discussion is likely a better course of action than a simple unblock, or the maintenance of the status quo. Lets keep this concise if poss :-) - maybe a straw poll is the easiest thing, given the volume of previous discussion? ] (]) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Has Moulton expressed any interest in being unblocked? ] (]) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::there are several requests for review on the ], and I believe a firm desire to be permitted to participate on wiki, specifically (though not necessarily limited to) discussions about him and his behaviour. In short, I'd say yup! ] (]) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Consensus is not needed to retain a block. A block is retained until there is consensus to unblock, until someone who understands the situation being prepared to unblock, preferably after discussing the situation with the blocker, or unless arbcom unblocks. Until then, the block sticks. So, if you feel motivated to fix this, you're going to have to convince us of the need to unblock, and invite the blocking admin to the discussion. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::okey dokey... the 'consensus to unblock required' bit does seem to contradict advice I received elsewhere, so it'll be good to clear that up, at least, and very good point on the need to discuss with the blocking admin - apologies... ] (]) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)<small>I'm happy to discuss the merits or otherwise of the block in more detail too, in due course....</small>
:#'''Support''' unblock. ] (]) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#'''Support''' unblock. Moulton tried to fix some biased Misplaced Pages articles. His actions were correct and ], "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Misplaced Pages’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." Of course, a team of editors known as the ] owned those biased Misplaced Pages articles and had been working very hard to make sure that they were biased. Rather than welcome Moulton, as required by Wikiversity policy, the ] harassed Moulton and drove him out of Misplaced Pages. It has taken a year for other Wikipedians to begin to pry ] and other articles out of the grip of the ]. The damage done by the ] to Misplaced Pages's reputation among working scientist will take many years to repair. We should start that repair now, when ] one of the ] ring-leaders. --] (]) 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You seem to be sadly misinformed – perhaps you've been reading Moulton's attack page at Wikiversity? You also seem to have missed the discussion above, now transferred to ]. Labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a ], and you should take care to respect the ] achieved by the diverse group of editors who edited the Picard article. Your piped links to ] are odd in that you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source. May I suggest that ] or ] (item 17) are more appropriate. . . ], ] 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, I have been "sadly misinformed" by reading the disgraceful edit history of ], its talk page and other Misplaced Pages pages that have been owned and given biased contents by <censored, I am not allowed to use the name that has been applied to this team of editors> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. It is interesting to watch what happens when the bad behavior of Wikipedian editors is discussed. Such discussions are labeled as "attacks". Yawn. Please find a new way to game the system. An open and scholarly analysis of editing patterns by <censored name> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests is not an attack. It is holding up a mirror. It is helping people become aware of what has happened....I'm talking about all the people who do put Misplaced Pages's mission first but do not have time to slog through edit histories. Using the term that you censor from Misplaced Pages is just a convenience, like using any other name. It is fully correct to use a label with negative connotations to discuss violations of Misplaced Pages policy. I suppose the thought police would like me to call <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests the "ID glee club" or something with a similar warm and fuzzy feeling. No thanks. I will not participate in thought control and censorship via new speak and double-talk. "dismissing or discrediting their views" <-- I did not mentioned the views of <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. I stated ''my'' view of their editing and on-wiki behavior. I am prepared to describe in detail how my view arose from reading the edit history. I encourage all Wikipedians to look at the edit history of ]. Look at the version of the article that was created and defended relentlessly by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. Read the talk page and see how <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests "justified" their relentless POV-pushing. Look at the current version of the page that has been built by the hard work of Wikiedians who continue to remove the bias that was created by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. Then think about how Moulton was treated for trying to help Misplaced Pages fix that article. Then hold your head high as a proud Wikipedian. Yes, let's be proud to ban editors who try to correct biased BLPs. "you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source" <-- Let's examine this claim in detail. Which source? How was that source used on Misplaced Pages? Describe the original research which generated the "information" you are talking about. --] (]) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thought control? Censorship? Please take your rantings elsewhere. This section is for discussing whether Moulton's block should be overturned, and your screed has no bearing on that. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::KillerChihuahua: thanks for showing everyone that you are so open to having a discussion. When you do not want to have people discuss your actions do you always label their discussion as a "rant"? Which Misplaced Pages policy advises you to take that course of action? Which policy says that you can label my comments as a "rant", but I cannot use the term <censored>? "]" <-- can you provide a dif to the comment you left on Moulton's talk page when you blocked him? --] (]) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::You are still off-topic. Raise issues you have about my actions elsewhere, but please do not hijack this thread for that purpose. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::"still off-topic"..."do not hijack this thread" <-- Hypothesis: there was a bad block imposed on Moulton. This bad block inflamed a tender situation, leading ultimately to attempts to ban Moulton. I think it is entirely on-topic to explore this hypothesis. If there was a bad block, then that has important implications for deciding if Moulton should remained blocked. As far as I can tell, neither you or anyone else left a message on Moulton's user talk page giving the reason for the indefinite block that you imposed. Help me out here...is there an edit to Moulton's user page that I cannot see? --] (]) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::, 10 minutes after the block. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: with the reason given as "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc." Then, 10 minutes later, ] made which says "" The text "abuse of editing privileges" linked to ]. So, the reason given for the block on Moulton's user talk page was "vandalism" and there was no notification given on Moulton's user page of the reason for the indefinite block that was given in the actual block-tool statement. Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell post the wrong reason for the block? Why did MastCell fail to sign the post to Moulton's page that gave the false reason for a block? Why did KillerChihuahua never make sure that the reason for the block was posted to Moulton's user talk page? Moulton was left with an absurd reason for the block and nobody to contact about the block. Why did ] such an obviously bad block? --] (]) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::'''You're''' an admin??? I shouldn't be still shocked when discovering those who attack others are admins, but I am. Of course that's why I vote in RFAs; I doubt I'm alone in that regard. ] (]) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I wish I was still shocked by Wikipedians who call it an "attack" when violations of BLP policy are described and discussed. No wonder it is so hard to get things fixed. "referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" --] (]) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Crusading", "cabalism" "relentless POV pushing" "damaging Misplaced Pages" are attacks, not simply "referring to other editors." Seriously, '''as an admin,''' you should know better. Your complaint about harrassment would go over better if if wasn't littered with such attacks. And I didn't even mention your failure of AGF. I would suggest you refactor, but I don't expect it, because such attacks without even a shred of evidence are somehow acceptable here, at least when it comes to those ]s in the "cabal". Your fellow admins will look away. And that is a shame. ] (]) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::I've been very careful to only use '''mild''' language to describe the nature of the editing that has taken place at ] and related articles. Describing a sickening part of the editing history of Misplaced Pages is not an attack, its an attempt to cure the sickness. "your failure of AGF" <-- describe in detail how I have failed to assume good faith. If you want to discuss the evidence then we can start with the evidence to support this claim: "Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source," that was raised above by ]. I asked for that reliable source. Let's start there as I requested above. I'm prepared to discuss in detail the edit history of ] and ] and explain why I characterize it as sickening. I tried to get you started on the page histories . If you question the nature and reliability of my descriptions of the editing at ] then we should examine the history of that editing in detail. --] (]) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::'''There is no excuse for attacking editors.''' Not because you think you were being "mild" because your targets deserve worse, or because it's what you consider to be true. Show me the exceptions to NPA in wikipolicy or I won't even bother with your complaints. You can't start a conversation with attacks and expect anything fruitful out of it. That's how attacks work; they mean I don't have to listen to you at all. Show me the link to NPA that allows your attitude. If you aren't, don't bother to respond, because I'm not interested.] (]) 06:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::"]" <-- I've stated ''my'' view of what led to Moulton being blocked. I've described the editing history a group of editors who came into conflict with Moulton. I'm prepared to have you fully examine the validity of my characterization. "address the issues of content" <-- I've asked you to join me in looking in detail at the content dispute that led to the block of Moulton. You refuse to examine and discuss the evidence. Does this mean you believe that Moulton should remain blocked without an examination of the editing conflict that led to his block? "NPA in wikipolicy" <-- If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that I made personal attacks. I agree that in an ordinary content dispute it is wise to "comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all". However, this thread is a discussion about an attempt to ban a participant from Misplaced Pages. We have to examine the actions of the person who was blocked (Moulton) and the team of editors that has worked together in an effort to ban him from participation at Misplaced Pages. I have given my description and account of Moulton and those who have worked so hard to ban him. I stand ready to defend my description and account in terms of the Misplaced Pages editing history. You refuse to examine the evidence and you keep talking about attacks, so please list the editors that you think I have attacked. --] (]) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:#'''No thanks'''. You lost me at "in IRC". No thanks. ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#:don't blame you, Keeper :-) - though your post is a bit ambiguous to me - it could be taken as a 'no comment'? (as in 'no thanks' to the very idea of this discussion, without prejudice etc.) but maybe you mean more 'no way!' to the unblock idea? ] (]) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#::I'm quite sure Keeper is against the unblock based on that comment. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 02:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#:::Hersfold summarized my opinion correctly. Just one man's opinion though, tainted, perhsps, by the level of drama on-wiki recently. I'm going offline. ] {{IPA|&#448;}}<!-- &#124; also works --> ] 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#Despite being the "wise chap", I still '''support''' the '''block''' remaining. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#:I also looked into Moulton's work at Wikiversity, to see if perhaps my initial perceptions were wrong, and I find I cannot support an unblock of someone who actively uses one Wikimedia project as a launchpad to ] another Wikimedia project, as Moulton appears to have done at ]. <small>I do love Wikiversity in general, last week I helped move a class of 200 engineering students from FLorida to it from our userspace</small>''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#'''Do not support the unblock'''. Furthermore, discussions of this nature should be held in the open, not in IRC. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:#While I think that some of what Moulton did here has been mischaracterized by his more vehement opponents, I do not believe that he is currently capable (or indeed interested) in functioning here within the confines of current community norms. Whether this is a flaw in Moulton, in our community norms, or (most likely) some mixture of the two is a moot point. '''Oppose unblock'''. ] (]) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:# '''Oppose unblock'''. Moulton has started working on en.wv, and I think that is great. I usually support unblocks when someone really gets into another WMF project (with one recent spectacular failure), but I dont think Moulton has yet spent enough time on en.wv to have demonstrate he is good for the wiki community. If we look at his contribs , the are primarily to user talk pages, and otherwise they are focused on a single learning project. He needs to diversify on en.wv, or start helping out on . enwiki is not the only project. If someone only wants to work on enwiki, they are probably bad for enwiki. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Wait a minute&mdash;that's a pretty striking claim. I have no interest in working on any of the other projects, but surely you're not suggesting I'm bad for this one? In fact, I'd assume most of our contributors are only interested in working on this project. ] (]) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Most users here, including renowned ones, have only significantly worked on Misplaced Pages, and have no desire to get involved, and invest their ''time'', in what may be called ''lesser projects''. Personally, I appreciate wiktionary, and meta-projects like meta-wiki and commons are useful, but I've never been convinced by wikinews, wikisource, wikiversity, etc. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

*I have serious concerns about the handling of the incident which led to his block in the first place. I will go into detail if desired, but it seems sufficient to say that the worst that will happen if he is unblocked is that he will be unable to color within the lines and will be re-blocked. ] 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
**I should perhaps be explicit that I do not oppose an unblock. The handling of the situation that led to his block was unacceptable. If he is going to earn an indefinite ban, let him earn it on his own, and not with the assistance of, let's say, ''unfortunate circumstances.'' ] 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
***Is "unfortunate circumstances" the new euphemism for the "ID cabal"? ] --] 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

*I agree with Thatcher. I don't believe he's ready or suited to be back editing here, and I think he will simply get reblocked very soon if unblocked. I don't see the point of it really. <big>]</big> 02:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::'''Must comment''' I've seen that meme repeated here quite often...''simply get reblocked''...and every time I wonder if I've accidently left Misplaced Pages. Are we in the same place? Because I lurk these admin boards to follow the Big Picture, and from what I've seen there is '''nothing''' simple about a block. ] (]) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

*He was unable to color within the lines last time. What purpose would be served in repeating the experiment? '''Oppose''' unblock until and unless there is some reason to believe that there would be benefit to the project. Let him edit his talk page if he wishes, that's fine. Let him participate in other projects such as Wikiversity, which have different participation mores and norms, that's fine. But not here. Entirely unsuited to edit here. <s>] (]) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)</s> ++]: ]/] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Very difficult for me to evaluate anonymous comments without knowing your history and biases. ] 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::That was me. I WAS signed in earlier today... sigh. The EC I had meant i was rushing to hit save. ++]: ]/] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*IRC discussions should only be informative, not decision-making. I don't see a reason or benefit to unblock. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' I don't think he will be readily amenable with our editing norms. ] (]) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' for reasons stated by others above, particularly concerns about the editor's ability to edit here on EN in a constructive and non-disruptive way. ] 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*No. And anyone who disagrees should be sure to look at the at Wikiversity. Why Wikimedia feels the need to allow a "sister" project to contain such a thing is beyond me. --] (]) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:Huh? ''Attack'' project? o.O ] (]) 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, attack project. It is a forum for airing personal squabbles like . Real reform doesn't happen when criticism takes the form of Moulton's hysteria and, I believe, one of the big reasons that the C68-SV-FM case is being dismissed with a yawn is that personal squabbles drowned out the legitimate complaints about abuse of the admin tools. --] (]) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Lets not label Wikiversity a BADSITE :-) It wont take you to long to understand why that project has been retained if you took the time to understand what Wikiversity is. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I think Wikiversity have epic failed this time but. Their equivalent of our "conflict of interest" policy should be a "professional detachment" policy. ] 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::{{tl|sofixit}} ? Ideas ]. ? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::You mean, as has already begun at ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Oppose unblock''' I do not think he is capable of consistently editing in a collaobrative manner amenable to WP, from what I have seen. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*Unceremoniously no. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Procedural oppose'''. On principle, I reject the notion that any banned user may demand a review of their status without warning or schedule, as many times as they wish, and that the community must muster afresh ''ad infinitum'' to maintain the ban. Even if the proposal is made with the best of intentions (and I am willing to assume it is), it must be obvious that this is a highly gameable proposition: a small number of coordinated trolls could hamstring necessary business--simply by rotating their requests to return--until by exhausting the patience of the community in an entirely new manner they return by attrition. No, I won't do business that way. Request speedy closure of the discussion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*I agree with Durova's comment that community blocks shouldn't be endlessly reviewed. However I note that this is the one year anniversary of the original block, so as a final review this is an appropriate time. I agree with B that the Wikiversity page is worrisome, and the fact that this appears to have been one of the Moulton's major Wikimedia contributions in the past year indicates to me that there's more interest in stirring the pot than in writing the encyclopedia. I have not followed Moulton's case and don't know most of the details. However I have seen the name appear again and again here and on other administrative pages. In the interest of getting on with the work and lessening time spent on discussing problem editors, I '''oppose unblock''' and oppose further reviews until the next anniversary. ]] ] 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*My view on this is uncertain. As detailed before (at quite some length) on this page, I do not believe the original block was handled fairly. Moulton keeps seeming to "get in trouble" despite only being allowed to edit his talk page -- I think a lot of that is because editors assume bad faith when it comes to banned users. My experience from ''lengthy'' email discussions is that everything Moulton does is in complete good faith. He is sometimes spectacularly misguided, but never, I think, malicious. That said, I do not support an unblock unconditionally. If Moulton was forcibly kept away from the subject of intelligent design, I think he could edit productively. Unblocking is very unlikely to cause harm. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' – Lar and B present a fair and well-informed assessment, Moulton essentially wants a soapbox for ideas at odds with Misplaced Pages's principles. He can talk persuasively, but is a nightmare to try to edit with, and if unblocked would need a huge amount of attention in mentoring. . . ], ] 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''', enough time has passed. If he screws up the opportunity, we can just block him again. ] (]) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' seems to me that what disrupts wikipedia's work is not so much the damage problematic users do (which can be reverted in a few clicks) so much as the divisive and time-absorbing discussions their treatment generates. Durova is correct that "reviewing on demand" is not good. However, as this long discussion shows it is almost inevitable. And we will have the same debate next year, if not before. Pragmatically, it might be better to unblock any banned user after a year, providing we receive their parole (=promise of good behaviour) and with the strict policy that ANY breach is an immediate block/ban without discussion. That way, we either get the user back behaving (win) or we continue the ban with much less discussion (win). An automatic policy here, which allows both for redemption and no tolerance of future nonsense, might decrease the dispute and disruption all round. Let's face it, some of us are more lenient, some more intent on protecting the project, a policy like I outline would perhaps go some way to meeting both concerns.--] (]) 09:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, for now.''' I've always had zero tolerance for outing other editors, which is why I threw the indef on him a few months back. However, I'd be willing to reconsider--albeit with '''very''' onerous restrictions--if he can prove himself on Wikiversity or another project. ]] 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
* '''Oppose unblock'''. Last indef was placed in June for "Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here". This looks like another request originating at WR for the unblocking of one of their own, but the blocking issue is not addressed. Neither is the "POV OR warrior" issue. Any appeal belongs with the arbitration committee at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that one of the unblock supporters explicitly invokes the "ID cabal" puts the lid on it for me. I have had enough of that particular meme, and to suggest that bringing Moulton back to assist in the work of resisting '''NPOV'''-pushing is almost enough on its own to persuade me that it would be a really bad idea. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:* Guy, I just need to interject on two points of order here. A) You were the one who mentioned how labeling people and auto-assuming bad faith from a group of users isn't productive, over a recent discussion, and even the post above you mention it. And B) Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but there's quite a few people who post at WR (and you can count me in that group) who do not think an unblock would be a good thing right now, so close to the last time where he got given "one last chance" and went outside the lines. Rather more then those WR posters who do support it, if I don't miss my guess. I know with all the history behind it, it may be hard to avoid the knee-jerk reaction here, but I think that you're a bit mistaken here with regards to motives. ] (]) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::*I agree with SirFozzie, Guy - so far a majority of those of us who are active on WR (Lar, SirFozzie, Viridae, LessHeard, DanT, me - MBisanz, Seicer, and B too, if you want to adopt a broad definition of "active") are opposing an unblock. Actually, the only WR users who appear to support at this point are Privatemusings and Everyking. Request that you strike or clarify that portion of your comment. ] (]) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::*Third this request - Guy, please strike the WR assumption. Otherwise, I agree with Guy. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: My problem here is with they hypocrisy of a group of people who collude on WR and then come here accusing Wikipedians of cabalism in resisting their blatant attempts to push a fringe POV. It's not about WR per se, it's about a web community whose aims are not our aims putting DefendEachOther above the values they should adopt when they come here. Colluding there and then accusing Wikipedians of cabalism for enforcing one of our fundamental policies is rank hypocrisy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Except that here, people are pointing out there's not a group of people on WR colluding for this (this time). Just liking many were jumping on Kelly that there's not an IDCabal colluding on the Sarah Palin pages (this time). Whether groups at WR are colluding to push POVs on wiki is debatable on a situational basis, just like whether current or former members of the ID wikiproject do similar. And you're right that it's a bad mindset to be in to automatically go looking for this sort of conspiracy, not just for individuals but the project as a whole. But several folks are trying to point out to you, that you're doing the same thing right here, right now. And to someone like me, who's not involved with WR, ID, Sarah Palin, or any "cabals", it looks a bit hypocritical. And it pains me, because I feel you're on the right side here (I agree with the general assessment of Moulton's unsuitability to return at this time), just with all the wrong arguments. --] (]) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*I personally don't think Moulton has the temperament to deal with enwp. Yes his original block was undoubtedly handled badly, and he has/had every right to feel wronged there, but his pursuit of justice has, I feel, gone far beyond a reasonable reaction from someone wronged on a website that is fairly minor in the scheme of things. It strikes me that Moulton's quest for that which is "right and just" is an admirable quality in the real world, but an unhelpful one when taken to extremes when there is the pursuit of a single common goal (ie writing a half decent reference work). In other words wikipedia should strive to treat everyone fairly, but wikipedia is not for everyone and some people get left by the wayside, forcibly or not. If however he demonstrates a willingness to adapt to the wiki culture in his work on other wiki's I would then consider supporting an unban, taking into acount enwp's more heated nature. ]] 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
**It saddens me to see someone say that Misplaced Pages is not for everyone. Moulton is an unusual guy, but I've seen little to indicate that he is temperamentally incapable of contributing productively, as some people are suggesting. I've seen him talking a lot on WR, but I wouldn't try to predict how he would behave in this editing environment based on that. In any case, I feel that, unless a person has behaved in a totally abhorrent manner, they should necessarily be given another chance after some reasonable amount of time has passed. Furthermore, after a year of concentrating so heavily on WP during his ban, Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Misplaced Pages operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time. We ought to at least give him the opportunity to demonstrate that. ] (]) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
***That opportunity has been given. " Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Misplaced Pages operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time." I see no evidence of that. I've had more discussions with him than some, and I just don't see any fundamental change in behaviour or approach, any acknowledgement that sometimes consensus is right or at least operative, and he is wrong, or at least out-consensed. I'm sorry to say this, but it is indeed true that Misplaced Pages is not for everyone. ++]: ]/] 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support unblock''' As I am aware, Moulton has been "suspended" at Misplaced Pages Review in respect of his difficulties in operating within the parameters of a website and, although I acknowledge and admire his intellect, I feel he does need to consistently demonstrate the ability to work within the guidelines before being given another chance... However, since Guy has determined this is a case of WR participants supporting their own I guess I have to default support. ]. ] (]) 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
** No you don't. ++]: ]/] 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
* Echo the above... I can't go against my WR cabal buddies... that just wouldn't be right! No, seriously, JzG is being highly hypocritical to condemn the "memes" that label people as part of a sinister clique, when he does the same himself, sometimes in the same breath. As for unblocking Moulton, I think the original block/ban was unjust, but also agree with some of the comments to the effect that he's probably temperamentally unsuited for Misplaced Pages participation... I tried to give him some friendly advice while on a ] show with him, to the effect that rather than him simply making demands that everybody else on Misplaced Pages change to suit him, he needs to do a little "give-and-take" himself and admit his own approach hasn't always been productive, and that he needs to make some attempt to follow policies and fit in the culture even if he disagrees with some of it. He wasn't interested in any of this, unfortunately. ] (]) 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
**Yes, JzG is right about memes in general. No he's not right in applying the WR meme here. ++]: ]/] 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year, recommend closing this thread before it becomes yet another clash of factions. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
* oppose unblock. Really, the fact that Lar, Dtobias, Guy and B, and Less Heard all agree that someone should stay blocked should make things clear. Lar and B in particular give very good rationales for keeping him blocked and I couldn't say it better myself. ] (]) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year per Tom H. Strongly suggest that those who are (rather childishly, IMO) repeating the "support my WR Cabal buddies" might wish to review their position as a bit POINT-y. If you have a view on unblocking Moulton, well and good, we welcome your input - but if you wish to start a playground fight I suggest you go elsewhere and not waste others' time here. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support unblock''' if he promises to behave and is adopted. ] (]) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*::I predict mentoring won't work. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I believe that Moulton cannot handle himself appropriate with certain people. He is more easily baited than I am, which says a lot. This does not say that he is a bad person. It just says that a situation with him can easily become very bad very fast. Old dogs do not learn new tricks, and some people are set in their ways. If there was a way that he could provide information and be isolated from the politics, or kept from being able to deal with them and instead let leveler heads deal with them, then maybe. I don't know. ] (]) 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Opppose''' unblock for at least 3 months. ] (]) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose unblock''' - His time on Wikiversity appears to have been spent writing a pseudo-scholarly attack on everyone he disliked here - And this is the evidence provided for his reform? If he wants back on Misplaced Pages, he shouldn't be endlessly trying to rerun the disputes that got him banned on another Wikimedia project, and particularly shouldn't then use his activity on that project to justify being unbanned here. ] (]) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. You have got to be kidding me. Does his situation need a review every two or three months? Every month? This is getting ridiculous. What has changed? ] is a short list of over 50 Wikipedians who have looked at the "Moulton unblock situation" in the last year in some detail and at least at some juncture, decided that unblocking Moulton was a bad idea (some of course might have subsequently changed their minds, but I would be highly doubtful that a substantial fraction of those on my list have changed their minds). My own position on the Moulton situation is described ] for anyone interested. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion, please feel free to come visit the NTWW crew at Skype, or otherwise contact me through Skype and I will be glad to discuss my position on Moulton at length with any interested party. I am unique in having much more of the relevant background necessary for evaluating this situation than almost anyone else here, and having dealt with Moulton in greater depth and for longer than most others commenting here.--] (] | ]) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''oppose unblock''' ] | ] 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' - the original block was bad, carried out by a disruptive group of editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*:Please clarify. I am now "a disruptive group of editors" according to you? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' I don't believe Moulton has done anything worthy of an indef block. -- ] 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. Really, I think this has come up quite enough. At this point, it should go to Arbitration if the interested parties wish to continue this. There's nothing to indicate that he won't continue his disruptive practice of outing editors and personal attacks; until there is something of that nature, then there's no reason to keep doing this ad infinitum. Some people just can't work in a heterogenous environment with people who hold views contrary to their own, and I think his edit history demonstrates that he is one of those people; blocks are preventive, and this particular block prevents a number of problems. I don't think undoing it is going to be a net benefit to the project. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. There's a lot of merit in the argument that a low-effort, low-drama block/unblock/reblock cycle would be a good approach to long-term problematic editors, but in this case I don't think it fits. Moulton positively ''leapt'' at the chance to play the martyr during his RfC, and there is no sign of a break in the roleplaying, if his "all about ethics" Wikiversity collaboration with JWSchmidt/JWSurf is anything to go by. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Motion to close ===
What I see here is no consensus to unblock. I'll also note the marked absence of the thread started ''once'' the thread kicked off. Request permission to close this thread? ] (]) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:if you meant 'thread starter' above, nonvoc, then /me waves :-) - this process has helped clarify a few things for me, and I think you've been rather conservative in describing 'no consensus to unblock' ! I would think that regular archive processes will deal with this thread in the usual way, and I think that's for the best. cheers, ] (]) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:Leave it open, discussion is ongoing. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:Leave it open. -- ] 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::'''Oppose closure of section as I'm yet to oppose unblock'''. Voting is fun. ] (]) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There are approximately 30 oppositions, 2 supports, and 0 on topic conversation. Issue is essentially resolved.--] (]) 11:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah it is - but valuable insights might yet be had. Leave it to die on its own, don't force it (I'm looking at you NVS) ]] 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ok... that is why I asked permission to add the tags. I won't force a closure. ] (]) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I count at least five editors who support an unblock. ] (]) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::So? Not a vote, remember? There is clearly a lack of consensus to unblock.--] (]) 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Oh I agree, you'd said there were but 2 supports, is all. I lean towards keeping the block for now btw. ] (]) 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


:FYI: ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Is that necessary? This seems like a good faith attempt by Privatemusings to bring up an issue for discussion. The consensus was clear when it was brought up. But I at least wasn't aware of how strong this consensus would be until this discussion occurred. It isn't clear to me what PM did in this case that is problematic. ] (]) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::: '''ArbCom: ''Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings ... is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova.'''''<p>How is this related to the editing of BLP? <b><i>]</i> <sup>] / ]</sup></b> 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah I echo ed on this one. ]] 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Uh, what? That seems very odd. The remedy states "''Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons...''", so I'm more than a little confused on how the above discussion is even remotely related, or how it could result in an extension of the mentorship. - ] ] 23:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Bad call I think. You can't extend the mentorship for this and cite the remedy - does not apply. This type of action also has a chilling effect. ] (]) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Best, ] (]) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

== Request to create template with protected title ==

I request creation of ], which is blocked since the title has been included on the ]. The purpose of this template is to provide a short (since it will be used in every line of a table of chemical equations) way of writing the {{Unicode|⇄}} character so it will render properly on Internet Explorer. The text for the template will be as follows:

<nowiki><span class="Unicode">&amp;#x21c4;</span></nowiki>

] (]) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
: {{done}} ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
:Wouldn't it be better to give it a name that people can actually type? <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 19:43, 11 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)}}
::Maybe a redirect from {{tl|rightleft}} to there could serve that purpose. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
repost from archive:


The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
:::{{done}} {{tl|rightleft}} {{equals}} {{tl|⇄}} {{equals}} {{⇄}} ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
::::] (]) {{rightleft}} ] (]) I had to try it out. ] (]) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
== Is ] still used? ==
* : 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''
Hey, I recently stumbled across ]. Is it still used? Because it has a backlog of more than 400 files. And do admins have the possibility to rename media files or do they have to reupload those files like everyone else? And if so, is there still a bot for this task, because it seems kind of tedious to do manually...anyone an idea? (Sorry, if this is the wrong place to post it, I was unsure if here or at Village Pump or at Bot requests or somewhere else, but I figured that some admins might know it best). Regards ''']]''' 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:This was a function of BetacommandBot before its de-botting. ] has indicated an interest in pursuing it at a later date, so maybe bug him to get coding. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the info. I will post at {{ul|Nixeagle}}'s talk page and if he does not want to pursue it, I will put up a request at ]. ''']]''' 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
MediaWiki can rename images through the move function now, but it hasn't been enabled on Wikimedia sites because it's still being tested. ] 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.


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


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors ], <s>]</s> ], and ] are subject to editing restrictions for one year: a limitation to one revert per page per week and a general parole against disruptive editing. ] is further placed on civility parole for that period.


: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)
&mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>, ''for the Arbitration Committee'', 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
:In the text of the decision you've linked to, ] is substituted for ]. Which of these is correct? &mdash; ] | ] 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::LisaLiel is correct. The users on whom the editing restrictions have been applied are: ], ], and ]. I have stricken and amended the above announcement as appropriate. ] ] 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed, the error is entirely mine; I have accidentally substituted two usernames while preparing the announcement and failed to notice the mistake while posting. It was, well, a clerical error. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
== Forgery? ==


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
{{Resolved|Nothing to see here. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Can anyone explain to me why in which one editor changed another editors vote in a pole is not forgery? --] (]) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:Because it reverted an obvious attempt to willfully insert invalid data into said poll and adversely affect the results? &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:22, 12 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)
== POV-Pushing from fr.wikipedia.org ==
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are three persons banned from fr.wikipedia.org mainly for POV-Pushing and unsuitable behaviour that are back in en.wikipedia.org in order to continue their POV-Pushing agenda (especially José Fontaine, a well-known walloon militant in Belgium) :
: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)
* {{u|Stephane.dohet}} : banned for flood contributions, sending empty snail mail to other contributor, sock-puppeting (]), … (also banned from es.wikipedia.org ])
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{u|José Fontaine}} for mass POV-Pushing
:::@]: 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)
* {{u|Adumoul}} : banned for being strawman of Fontaine on fr.wikipedia
:::{{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)
All the three of them are working on ] page for the moment. ] (]) 06:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
::::* To who would this be a threat?
::::* Which law?
::::* In which country?
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:I notified the three users of the existance of this thread so they can answer. --] (]) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::What should I say? I have with a French administrator this discussion where he is saying that everybody is wrong about this difficulties on the Belgian pages, linked to the very hard political difficulties of Belgium in the real life... Incidentally (everybody is wrong), Speculoos too is not allowed to make important changes on these Belgian pages during six month. I wish that instead of coming and coming again with what happens on fr:Wp, he and I will become positiv on en:Wp. I don't want to speak longer about that. ] (]) 18:25, 12 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)
== Anti-semitic edits ==


* 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)
'''Take a look''' {{Vandal|70.17.112.12}} has made some vaguely anti-Semitic edits, but he's stopped for several hours. I suggest that someone keep an eye on him. —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 07:30, 12 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=]}}.
I believe this article may need some additional eyes. Due to the mention of this term in the Sarah Palin interview earlier this evening, there have been two or three separate edit wars occurring, SPAs, using the article as a forum, etc. Apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum... thanks, --] | ] 08:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
:This is a great forum for the alert. I hope some admins who haven't been tending to American politics flareups will tackle this one. I also hope some experienced editors who can maintain a NPOV here will actually dig in as editors and educate while steering the article the way it ought to go. ] 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}


:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{unresolved}} I've semi-protected the article for edit warring. I don't have time to sort out which editors and IP addresses need blocks for edit warring. If I'm reading the history correctly, I think a few of them are beyond 3RR and a couple are more in the 10RR range. If someone with more time can sort this out, I won't object to removing the protection - though don't know if a lowering will last in the long run. ] 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:How can you semi-protect for editwarring O.o. I'm sorry but I thought semi-protect was for anon vandalism only. By semiprotecting you are favoring those with accounts over those without accounts. I think ] says we have to full protect it in the case of a content dispute/editwar. —— ''']]'''</font> 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::The article has had media attention (and presumably partisan blog attention also, but that isn't worth looking for), and the edit warring IP/new editors amounts to disruption. I saw enough in my quick glance to classify it as "significant but temporary vandalism or disruption—for example, due to media attention, when blocking individual users is not a feasible option", which is one of the reasons for semi-protection. I continue to believe that if an admin with time to review it feels that block the appropriate editors and IP addresses will work, I won't object to removing the protection. And obviously, if established editors continue the edit war there, someone should up it to full protection. But ''I'' don't have time to do a thorough investigation and sort it out, and letting the edit war continue was just plain wrong. If you would go issue edit warring warnings and WP:3RR reports or blocks, that would be more useful than commenting here. ] 20:00, 12 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.
:::I think semiprotection of high-profile articles under content disputes is often a good way to prevent sockpuppeting and strong POVed entries (near-vandalistic but probably good faith). This is especially true for the articles on the current events there full protection is really a weapon of the last resort ] (]) 01:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}
*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
== Help complete an incomplete move ==
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}


A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{resolved}}
The former content of ] was moved to ] so that ] could deal with general biological content (variety of excretory arrangements in different groups of animals; embryological development; evolution; etc.) while ] deals with specifically human aspects including medical and sexual.


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately ] was not moved at the same time, although its content relates only to ].
: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)
Could someone please move ] to ] before the confusion becomes serious. I'm reluctant to try this myself in case I make the situation worse. -- ] (]) 10:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


:Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Many thanks! -- ] (]) 10:46, 12 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)
::Nice to see a prosaic request to "move your booty"; disco has a lot to answer for. --]] 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


: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)
== Script deletion ==
::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 ==
Someone has just deleted a widely user script. They have even "ranted" on the talk page as if proud of their actions. ] & ]. Is anyone here able to reinstate is. :: ] : ]/] 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:I'm not going to out-and-out restore it for you at this point without discussing with the original deleting administrator, but have you considered listing it at ]? ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
::I suggest we keep it deleted for the reasons outlined on the talk page. ] (]) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, that too. It was a valid deletion as far as I'm concerned, albeit one that seemingly came without warning and which will affect a large group of editors. Community review and input wouldn't be a bad thing, but at the same time, it was Outriggr's script and I morally support his right to do with it as he pleases. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
:::Far fewer teeth will be gnashed. ] (]) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::The deleting administrator deleted the script on request from the person whose userspace it resided in, and it was the person who created the tool that posted the "rant" on the talkpage. The deleting admin was just following a G7/U1 CSD request. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ameliorate!''' <sub>] ] ]</sub> '''@'''</span> 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Personally, I like the script and willing to grab it back if the community thinks it's useful and it should be retained (to someone else's userspace so that a user doesn't need to have something in his userspace that he doesn't like). The part that puzzled me is me stating the "Article assessments SUCKS" part. Since all classes, including FA and GA are indeed article assessments, does that mean he's opposing to these classes too? ]] 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: The text of the script is covered by the GFDL so any other user could expect a request for an undeleted copy in his/her own userspace to be granted, without need to consult the deleting admin. As for the rant, article assessment has always been a dubious business - at the wikiproject level it tends to be insultingly cursory - a problem that, seemingly to the chagrin of Outriggr, is exacerbated by his script. ] (]) 16:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*The way to decide on how to assess articles is in a general group discussion, not by the unilateral actions of one editor. I am unclear whether if it were placed in user space it would still function, without everyone who wished to use it changing the name. So the question really is undeleting it. I consider the use of the script by multiple parties the same as if it had been edited multiple times, and disqualifies it for a G7 userrequest. I'd have no hesitation in turning down user requests for deletion of something that appears to be useful to at least some people in the community. Nobody owns a contribution to wikipedia, and the GFDL is irrevocable. I note that I do not work in any of the article review processes, so I have no particular feeling on the underlying issue. ''']''' (]) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


== Making a change to ] ==


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>
First off, I'd post this at ] but I need a bit more than just an edit to a protected template. I posted a suggested change at '']'' and I need an admin to make this change (which I think will not be controversial). But I need an admin with some template editing skills, so that it works only if an Index exists or, preferably, if one specified the link to it with a new optional parameter. So could someone make such change for me? (I think it should look like the ] but with that aforementioned switch (I am not good at such template editing)). Regards and TIA ''']]''' 11:22, 12 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)


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)
: Ummm, {{tl|archives}}? (/me wonders once again why we still have 45643563 slightly different archive box templates) ] - ] 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::I don't like {{tl|archives}} because it uses "Archive 1" instead of just "1" as links. Which proves your point, I think a master archive template where this could be changed with a parameter would be nicer. But as long as we haven't got that, I'd still like {{tl|Archivebox}} changed ;-) ''']]''' 12:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::However, I'd put the optional Index link "inside" the box, not within its header. Preferably right above the archive links themselves. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::The exact location can be changed. I just think it should be included somewhere. And as I said, if it's an optional switch, it will not annoy those people who have no index files. ''']]''' 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: You can use "auto=yes" to display only the number (that's why I've got it set to on my talk). ] - ] 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] backlog doin' great ==
::Are there that many? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 13:14, 12 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.
:::There's ], though I'm not sure how many are meant for talk pages. &ndash;] ] ] 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)Looking at {{cl|Archival templates}}, there appears to be 130 ... which is still a lot more than one would expect. --] (]) 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Chris was explicitly talking about a big number of ''archive box'' templates. ] lists all sorts of archive templates, such as archive headers. Still, 130 seems many. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)r


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)
== Limitation of CSD ==


== Call for mentors ==
So there's ] article that doesn't really fit any of the CSD criteria because the author claims that he broke world records, but the article makes it obvious that it's a petty hoax (and obviously there's no google results of the person). Does this kind of article still need to pass through AfD? -- ]] 14:42, 12 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)
: G3 includes "blatant and obvious misinformation". ] - ] 15:35, 12 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)
:: Vandalism also fits. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:37, 12 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 ]==
== ADDENDUM to "Abusive User:Noclador, his impunity..." - EVENT HISTORY ==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
Addendum pertaining to :
I made reference on my talk page, as discussed of the sockpuppetry. '''It will remain there as documentary defense material''' against further unreasonable and slanderous sockpuppetry accusations, deliberate false charges of fascism, and calls for my banning – which appear to be inevitable. I am continually subjected to it, and nothing is done about it, so I must. What follows below will show why I do not agree with statements that Noclador did nothing wrong, and it will also be referred to as documented evidence the next time I am accused. This is an issue about conducting investigations properly. If my accuser showed some good faith and behaved in similar manner as, say, ] has on the matter, then I certainly would not have piped up this much. The sockpuppetry material and detail of the slander I have received will remain on my talk page until I am satisfied that it will not happen again. '''Someone requested a summary (and now because it has become obvious that the full story is not known, particularly my accuser’s actions), here:'''


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
I was a new user (officially joined 27th May 2008) , who saw (presumably added by Generalmesse) and believed that I could help constructively improve it, make it NPOV and add relevant citations, so I began working on it . As I thought the content was inappropriate in the section I originally found it in so I moved it to ], where I believed it more apt, and created a new section . I stated what I was doing in the edit summary of the edit. I then continued working on it.


(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)
A justification for the content was later placed , with the '''request that people work together on the issue rather than bicker'''.


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Went to Brisbane between 23 and 27th June (which is no where near Sydney and not in NSW, which is a very populous place and one of the alleged centers of sock activity, according to Noclador) – I declared my activities with sincerity from the beginning of the farcical sock puppetry investigation. I came back and logged on to add another citation found:
* '''(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 ==
::'''1.''' The section initiated on June 1st 2008 was deleted & I was accused (wrongfully) ) of being a sock puppet of Giovannigiove.
::::a) Directed to a page that made no reference to ] ()
::'''2.''' The entire content of my talk page (the welcome to Wikpedia I received, giving me pointers on navigation, editing and signatures etc, and previous conversations) had originally been completely wiped by Noclador with solely the sock puppetry accusation remaining . i.e. '''judge, jury and execution before any reasoned investigation.''' Hello!
::'''3.''' I undeleted the relevant historical section , pointing out in the edit summary that the content was most relevant there, if anywhere (it was still a work in progress). I stated to Noclador that I was doing so.
::'''4.''' Noclador '''re-deleted the material''' , and claimed I was generelmesse .
::::a) This unconstructive deletion was the final straw in what ticked me off, and I stated ''Use some of that good faith that you mentioned. Open a discussion page. '''Help me improve it instead of “vandalizing” the contribution.''' I have more to add when I get the rest of my sources out of storage. I cannot vouch for the radio Berlin links. I did not inlcude them. However, if you have an issue with them, as I said, put it on a discussion page.'' . This is where others feel that ] over-reacted.
::::::i) Note that Nocaldor has presented this statement in completely different context in his response to my ANI – a standard theme.
::::b) It took Karriges’ assertion that the subsection had merit to stop further deletion .
::'''5.''' I finally found the sock evidence page and discovered that:
::::a) Noclador presented false information about the pages I contributed to (no. of mainspace contribs. was wrong too)
::::::i) He also was incorrect about the location of Brisbane and timezone differences, and the meaning of the word romaioi. These are too simple for an adult who shows due diligence get wrong - so I believe they are deliberate misrepresentations.
::::b) Misrepresentative/distorted quotations, patched together from disparate locations to present passages completely out of context with what I was saying. These passages were inclusive of statements that I never made. , .
::'''6.''' Discovered that Noclador was canvassing and presenting unsubstantiated speculation of guilty behavior.
::'''7.''' I wrote a defense detailing pattern, citation/source, NPOV of my contributions & characteristic differences (apparently almost one has read it).
::::a) During the process to this point I was called:
::::::i) FASCIST , , – this originally only implied, as he referred to the socks as fascist and then stated that I was one and has only reinforced his position since. This is particularly absurd considering that his patch-worked edits to portray out of context montage of my statements have been extracted form sections that were markedly anti-fascist in nature. Now, however, he blatantly states it .
::::::::- My sources ( & ) are by British, American and Swiss authors and their sources can be traced to British military accounts, such as Gen. Alexander. One of my main sources is Chester Wilmot, a WWII (&I) '''BBC''' war correspondent who was present on most campaigns. '''So this is fascist?'''
::::::ii) FANATIC
::'''8.''' I was cleared of being a sock and told I behaved inappropriately (by Justin ) for calling Noclador a liar.
::::a) Justin made the unsubstantiated assertion that the ''profile of my edits fitted'' the profile of socks . One coincidental contribution of material on a similar topic does not justify a profile match. Particularly seeing that my contributions were clearly verifiable and NPOV.
::'''9.''' Noclador instigated an AN/I against me, which I was not informed of
::'''10.''' I wrote a statement on my user page about wrongful accusation and abuse & manipulation and how thorough investigations are needed in future {}
::'''11.''' Justin Instigated WQA . He believes I have no position because I called my attacker a liar, which he rates as a personal attack.
::::a) People involved with the WQA were satisfied my comments did no harm (but they felt it sounded spiteful – they are there as defensive measures against future sock puppetry accusations)
::::b) One user who understood where I was coming from (]) was politely criticized . In his defense I do not think he was taking my side, just presenting an observation.
::::c) I toned down my statement as a sign of good faith. But WQA was unresolved.
::'''12.''' I instigated ANI regarding the inappropriate treatment I received .
::'''13.''' Noclador canvassed his buddies for support, the several of whom, stated they did not read any of the accusations but believed that "Nocaldor must be right" and "Romaioi must be lying" (paraphrasing) (two other examples have no dif in the edit history – one was by Buckshot06, the other by Polarlys. )
::::a) Ed Fitzgerald made a minor summary and was criticized again.
::'''14.''' Noclaodor accused me again of being a sock, now ] , and ] my user page .
::::a) Noclador canvassed his mates, and Ed Fitzgerald, to win their support by spreading logistically impossible slanderous insinuations without merit. His canvassing revealed that he has no regard for the previous findings and maintains that I am a sock of Generalmesse & Brunodam (this one was not certain) .
::::b) No investigation was initiated – signifying the accusation was launched for the sake of misdirection, or for the purpose of character assassination (misinterpreted or not ] stated ''it smacks of character assassination''). In trying to convince a skeptical user he gave the impression that checkuser had been conducted for this second accusation and stated that I was GeneralMesse (yet another lie!) .
::::c) Another example of slanderous insinuations (copy edited): ''... was massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans……added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on……Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi… is the name with which the Roman settlers in the Balcans described themselves after the partition of the Roman empire... so... who is so much interested in these people??. More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related...'' . More lies! And of course, his definition of Romaioi is wrong.
::::d) Another user made another unsubstantiated comment: ''Some of those edits have a link to Romaioi'' There are no such links. The statement is baseless and the mere suggestion invites more slander. The merit of such a statement becomes apparent when the same user cites the complaint of abuse as unfounded when in the same passage he admits that he did not read the evidence, presented in plain English, by ], claiming ''TLDR'' . If you take it upon yourself to police, then you need to take the responsibility of considering ALL the information.
::'''15.''' It was once again demonstrated that I am not a sock (this time checkuser was not instigated, although I repeatedly called for it – instead I conducted an IP check).
::'''16.''' Common theme’s pertaining to Noclador’s campaign:
::::a) His assertions are inconsistent, misrepresentative and take statements out of context; ''where I come from, an OECD country, this is considered slander.''
::::b) His only proof is his “say so”, which is never backed up with anything substantive. The real proof (backed by real evidence) has always been to the contrary.
::::c) Repeatedly petitions and canvasses for my expulsion (continued after innocence proved).
::::d) He never bothered to investigate, but rather adopted an unfounded (illogical) opinion, and based on that, felt he had the right to slander and denigrate my character.
::::e) '''HE WAS THE FIRST TO BEHAVE BELLIGERENTLY''' – because of his inaccurate pre-conceived ideas. And he shows he still holds onto these ideas through his deliberate false claims of my fascism, racism and travels around the world to post fascist propaganda.


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)


== Deleted contributions request ==
'''Note 1:''' '''To claim that I over-reacted and behaved a certain way is a moot point, as it has already been acknowledged.''' It was established early on that I did not know the procedures, being a new user, and was of the belief that I was being subjected to a "free for all" attack. As per above, Noclador clearly had a belligerent attitude towards myself before he received any return correspondence. I do not believe that those who feel that I behaved inappropriately were aware of this sequence of events.
{{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)
'''Note 2:''' As can be seen from a little observation, my ability to contribute to such topics have been stymied by Noclador’s unconstructive deletions and his campaign. Irrespective, if you would like to believe the BS that I have not been contributing, it is suggested that you DYR and . You can see how thorough I can be, and you know I always cite. That signifies how much more I would have been able to contribute if I had not been attacked.
::@]: 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 ] ==
'''Note 3:''' Some said Noclador did nothing wrong. ( ). Supposedly, slander and insult while presenting false evidence is ok in some countries. Where I come from, the behaviour I was on the receiving end is classed as slander and it is seen as very wrong. So if you think there is nothing wrong, I must really question your objectivity on the matter. Belligerent behavior towards someone before an investigation to determine their guilt/innocence is also wrong.
{{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)}}
:::- <small>if the claim of noclador, that ''others believe me to be a guy who goes by generalmesse'' is true, then it indicates that others have not bothered to investigate the facts or read the evidence presented as defense that Misplaced Pages gives me the right to present. If true, this is rather uninspiring and flies in the face of wikipedia ethos. However, whilst I have not found any evidence that others continue to believe me to be a sock (the statement appears to be another devised fabrication), it would explain why some believe that Noclador has done nothing wrong.</small>
]'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)
'''Note 4:''' Based on Noclador’s own POV comments pertaining to Italian military prowess it can be just as easily concluded, using his own model of reasoning, that Noclodor is as much a sock as the Generelmesse, Brunodam, Giovannigiove etc – definitively more so than me. Especially when you consider that he is in fact, Italian, and I was born and raised Australian.
{{abot}}


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
'''Note 5:''' Someone thinks I am being punitive? Ummm… what about the repeated calls by Noclador to have me banned irrespective of my innocence? Regardless, its not about that.


The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The accuser has failed to demonstrate the ability to competently assess sockpuppetry with a NPOV, but rather has used slander, abuse derogatory conjecture and falsified information to petition for my guilt and banning. All due to one coincidental contribution in on subsection where I attempted to constructively improve on an alleged sock’s edits – a contribution which Noclador is unlikely to have read closely at all. That is hardly constructive on Noclador’s part. You can continue to refuse to acknowledge to evidence but the facts are there.


: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>
I will quote two passages from ] user page:
: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)
::* '' '''Newcomers are always to be welcomed'''. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".''
::], 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. ==
::* ''Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.''


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)
Neither has been extended towards me. Want to ban me? Go for it. I am sure there are higher authorities in the form of senior foundation members that would not mind knowing about how poorly some newcomers have been treated here and how those who attempt to do good deeds (i.e. turn a POV topic into NPOV, in this case) go punished. If that has to be my contribution to Misplaced Pages, then so be it. The issue is not about me its about the of abuse and lack of respect by editors who attempt to be policemen.


: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)
] (]) 15:37, 12 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)


== Hide this racist edit. ==
:If you want someone to actually read this, you may want to condense it into about a paragraph. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 15:44, 12 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)}}
:: They got into an edit war, got accused of being a sock, edit-warred some more, was found innocent of being a sock, some other user was canvassing, got called names, had an ANI thread made about them, got accused again of being a sock, was again found innocent and is now here to complain about their treatment because it contradicts something Jimbo once said, with the usual threat of "I am sure X would like to hear about this". <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ameliorate!''' <sub>] ] ]</sub> '''@'''</span> 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: Z-Man, this is a step-by-step event history. I tried summarizing last time. It got messed up with people raising issues that required more explanation. So I did this for the sake of record and to avoid ambiguity. But Ameliorate has already introduced some. That's not what I call a threat - perhaps that point is going to be ambiguous to some. Oh well. Plus there was no initial edit war, I had barely started editing. ] (]) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::And the administrators who read this board should ... <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Its up to them. But it was pretty clear to me early on that nothing would be done. I'm putting it up for record with the hope that people remember what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about, rather than resorting to the means that my accuser did. Plus I have something more structured to refer to next time, rather than having to spend time re-writing a whole bunch of evidence. ] (]) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Agree with ]'s summary just above. This is all well-known material to those who followed the Generalmesse sock business. So far as I can tell Noclador has not pursued his sock charges about Romaioi since 12 August, so I don't see any new issue here requiring our attention. I personally do not believe Romaioi is a sock. Romaioi is not about to be banned so far as I know, so all parties should just calm down. ] (]) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::So no one is guilty of anything except arguing and writing excessively long AN threads containing too much drama? That sum it up? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:38, 12 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 backlogged ==
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
Please assist in clearing it. Thank you, ''']''' '']'' 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
== Search engine indexing updates ==


*
A few minor software changes have been implemented today that change the way we deal with search engine indexing. It's now possible to control en.wiki's ] file from the wiki at ].
*


Additionally, ] has been resolved, making all of the User_talk: namespace no longer indexed by search engines that obey robots.txt (most do). --] (]) 00:20, 13 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)
{{Abot}}
:User pages (including some sandbox articles that are actually quite good) are still indexed, right? ] (]) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::For the moment, yes. Though any admin could change that at ]. The only thing that really isn't override-able is that all pages in the User_talk: namespace are not indexed any longer (sandboxes are usually in the User: namespace, so they are still indexed). --] (]) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::Don't forget useful primary source transcriptions that are not complete enough for Wikisource: ] --] 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure, but {{tl|INDEX}} may override the no-indexing on individual user talk pages. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's true for the moment (I just tested on my User_talk: page). Though after ] is fixed (or the underlying issue, really), it won't be override-able. --] (]) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:04, 9 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 22 22 44
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 5 12
    RfD 0 0 39 12 51
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

    Request removal of PMR/Rollback

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

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

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

     Done. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

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

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

    User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

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

    Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emoji redirect

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

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

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

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

    Topic ban appeal

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

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

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

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

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

    Andra Febrian report

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

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

    Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

    Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

    Cannot draftify page

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

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

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

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

    Remove PCR flag

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

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

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

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

    "The Testifier" report

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

    Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

    repost from archive:

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

    Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

    References

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

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

    Heritage Foundation

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

    Deleted contributions request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

    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)

    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):

    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. Category: