Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 16:56, 16 June 2009 editGoRight (talk | contribs)6,435 edits →Self reversion of edits by topic-banned editors: - For the record I was typing this at the same time as Fritzpol was closing it. Stricken.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:39, 23 January 2025 edit undoGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers496,644 editsm →Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
|algo = old(7d)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|counter = 368
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|counter = 195
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|algo = old(48h)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|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==
== Proposed standstill agreement on Bilateral Relations articles ==
<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 ==
There has been a huge amount of heat lately, and very little light, about articles named in the form "Foo-Bar relations" (hereinafter "FBR articles"), Foo and Bar being countries or adjectives derived from country names. This has led to divisive disputes at AFDs, DRVs, and across an assortment of talk pages. A discussion was formed at ], but this has had limited success to date.
{{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
In summary, the same sets of people tend to show up at all the discussions, and some of them tend to !vote the same way on all discussions. This has the effect that the decision on any given FBR article, once nominated for AFD, depends on how many of each side show up to the discussion. If additional references are found in time, the discussion focuses on whether they are substantial, but because of the many ongoing discussions, views have hardened to the point that very little either side does convinces the other.


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 ].}}
] and I want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This is not meant to inhibit adding information to articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at ]. This would be enforceable as a ].
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Moscow Connection}} Your ''comments'' are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, <s>but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.</s><small>It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. </small> ] ] 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? 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}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with a little ] and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ]@] 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


== Lardlegwarmers block appeal ==
This standstill, if agreed by consensus here, will apply up to and including the end of the month (UTC). During the standstill:
{{atop
#New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action
| result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
#New FBR articles created after the standstill is commenced are eligible for speedy deletion
}}
#Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period
#Existing AFDs and DRVs will be allowed to run off
#Nothing in this inhibits improving existing articles or working on deleted articles or new articles in userspace


* {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
The principal objection to #1 above in the past has been that it would give free reign for non-notable content to remain in the encyclopedia. This may very well be true. However, the damage that the AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions are doing outweighs any potential damage caused by leaving potentially non-notable articles to exist for a month or two. Having seen the result of several such polarized topics in the past (Macedonia, Sathya Sai Baba, Ireland, route names, etc.), I am very keen to avoid this matter going down the same path.
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement from Lardlegwarmers ===
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
{{talk reflist}}
=== Statement from Tamzin ===
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Discussion among uninvolved editors ===
*This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ]&thinsp;] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ]&thinsp;] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ]&thinsp;] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Comments from involved editors ===
Should it appear necessary to extend the standstill, this can be considered here shortly before the expiry.
* Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers ==
Please consider ] mode, in favour of a discussion as to the merits of this standstill. ] (]) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
: what exactly is the point of this standstill, what happens at the end of the month? ] (]) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hopefully people will discuss the issues and come to some sort of consensus on the notability of FBR articles and/or an alternative structure for them. I am going to be away for the next two or three hours but in the meantime I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion. ] (]) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
}}
::: This is essentially a dispute over notability and sourcing guidelines, writ large. The best place to determine which of these should be retained is AFD. It is a mistake that[REDACTED] allow the creation of unsourced stubs of, in most cases, not even claimed notability, but that is the system at the moment. To both allow for the creation of unsourced stubs that quite frequently are not suitable for inclusion and not allow for an afd process on them (a process, i might add that skews in favor of retention since there are 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which yield the articles continued inclusion) is a rather radical departure from proven systems here, and for no clear need. To call something "disruptive" does not make it so. That people have strong feelings, one way or another, on this issue is not a good reason to shut down a process (and in service of nothing since all efforts to get consensus on this matter have failed). That there is a group of people who are more interested in this topic than average also does not seem a problem -- that's always the way[REDACTED] works. People work in the areas that interest them. There really is no problem here, and i don't see what the "damage" is. The various systems here should be robust enough to deal with issues of both individual editor conduct as well as determining what is, or is not, considered ''notable'' by the community. ] (]) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:I '''support''' this proposed standstill. To get a sense of how intense these disputes are getting, please note ] and to see the problems with how some are "voting" in these discussions, see ]. And we also had ] recent incident. AfDs are being flooded by these nominations, renominations, and subsequent DRVs that are needlessly overwhelming our ability to focus on improving those that can be improved by forcing us to have to go back and forth in one AfD only to have them faced almost immediate renomination or DRVs. Why we would rather be a collection of AfDs and DRVs rather than articles that are relevant to someone always baffles me. Moreover, in these discussions, in loosely related MfDs and on user and article talk pages, the animosity among those saying to keep versus those saying to delete is escalating with little sign of decreasing. If Misplaced Pages does not have a deadline then there is no urgent need to rid us of all of these now, just as there is no urgent need to have to hurry up and create as many new articles as possible. Thus, I for one will not create any new bilateral relations articles during this proposed standstill, nor will I nominate any for deletion. If we do not take a time out from these disputes across multiple threads, I do not see how the participants will come to any understanding and how we will avoid an RfC and eventual ArbCom on bilateral relations. We should be here to build an encyclopedia. Let us stop the arguing and get back to improving our existing content in a mature and collegial manner. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - allowing the situation to cool down is certainly a worthwhile idea. ] (]) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
:: I '''propose''' immediate deletion of all unsourced stubs on this topic (no information is "lost" when it amounts to "x y relations are relations between x and y. Y has an embassy in z.") with no prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing who sources and writes a proper start class article. In exchange, a one moratorium on the sourced x-y stubs can be declared, so that those who think these articles have merit can seek to improve them. I have no idea why any of this would ever end up at Arbcom or anywhere else. Again, when we have a system that allow sockpuppetss to serially and abusively create stubs, derailing the process by which the mess the sockpuppet created can be evaluated and dealt with (and an open, transparent process at that) is very much against the encyclopedia's best interests.] (]) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I do not see why we would want to force editors to start over when they already have a framework or foundation from which to expand. We should try to expand first per ] and then remove what we cannot. And yes, even if that takes years, that is no big deal as we hope to be around for years anyway. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:I don't necessarily oppose it but I think that this standstill would only "move" the problem 1 month forward and then we would have exactly the same situation with the same "players" with the same attitude. Actually Bali ultimate hit the nail with his comment that the system should be robust enough to deal with these situations. At the moment it doesn't seems so maybe some modifications would be in order. ] (]) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I would support this 100% if all the articles created by the banned user who cranked these out are removed from the main space first. Most of the discussions are between those of us who believe the subject of an article has to meet notability requirements and editors who think a collection of verifiable factoids constitutes an acceptable article. There are other complications but that's the primary issue. I don't think a moratorium on creating articles on a certain topic is appropriate nor do I believe it is appropriate to stop deletion of inappropriate articles, especially since no one has worked towards a solution on the real issue. I have a lot of respect for you, Stifle, but I can predict who will line up to support this or not. ] (]) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? ] (]) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think some of the above commenters are missing the point of this standstill. This standstill has nothing to do with the suitablity of these articles for Misplaced Pages. The point is the escalating acrimony among the editors who are involved in this issue. The standstill would allow everyone to take a month and discuss the larger issue, gathering as much of a consensus as possible. Once a rough guideline has been formed on how to determine notability on these, then things can go back into motion, with individual AFDs determining how these articles meet the new guideline. While I hate ] as much as anyone, new guidelines are written for exactly this reason: to provide a consensus document that people can refer back to in future discussions, whether they be ]s, ], or anything else. I think a standstill would be a good idea, so that the same identical issues aren't argued over and over in little discussions, but instead are addressed in a larger discussion where all interested parties can have input. That's my two cents, anyway. I like the idea of a standstill. I just hope a month is enough time to calm the raging waters. :)--] (]) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:This seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Reporting Administrator Abuse ==
*I am generally no fan of the "sit still and wait" method of dealing with problems, but this is a special case. Given the vast number of articles, discussions, disputes and arguments covering the issue it is nearly impossible to centralize our efforts; there is little use in trying to tackle this issue piecemeal. Therefore I '''support''' the proposal of a cooldown period, so long as efforts to tackle this issue in a more centralized fashion are not stifled by the lockdown. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
{{Atop|I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--] (]) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}


] is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. ] (]) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*I<s>t's wider than just one user creating these. Too much effort has been expended on AfDs and all (as noted, often along party lines, and whichever side shows up in more numbers wins). It would be useful to let these all rest for a month or two. If they develop to include what editors (not all) consider notable content, then they live on. If they remain a stub, then they get AfD'ed for quick delete. All too often something is created and editors rush in to nominate for deletion, sometimes because they believe it deserves to be deleted, sometimes because they want to harass the editors they know ''don't'' think it deserves to be deleted. '''Support'''</s> ''see comments further below'' ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::Well, there's the problem in a nutshell, it's not enough for an article to have verifiable content, even notable content, the '''subject of the article''' itself has to be notable. That's the problem and a moratorium won't solve it. ] (]) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::: <s>I'm not sure you're hearing everything I said. The month is useful for an opportunity for notable content to be created{{mdash}}if there are notable items in a relationship then those should bubble up to the article/topic being notable. If content of a notable nature is not created, then after a month the AfDs come out again. The problem right now is that articles are being nominated because editors maintain the topic of a particular A-B relationship in and of itself is not notable. That is a personal, not editorial opinion. Only after content is created can a judgement of notability be made. There the moratorium will be a tremendous help.</s> ''see comments below'' ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually I understand exactly what your saying and it reinforces my point. Every day at AfD something like 100 articles are evaluated not on the basis of the content but on the basis of whether or not the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines in some way, most often through significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Frequently they are stubs and rarely are they big articles. The content is almost irrelevant. You can add 500 verifiable facts to an article and the subject still isn't notable. All of the bilateral relations articles are either notable or not, right now, today, regardless of content. AfD discussion determines which is the case. Waiting a month won't make any of them notable that aren't already. ] (]) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*I think the standstill is a good idea, but suggest that instead of speedy deleting any new entries, they be speedily userfied / projectified instead, so as to preserve the work of any editors who are unaware of the standstill. Part of the problem here is that there has not been enough consideration by the community before now about whether we should restrict ourselves to particularly noteworthy bilateral relations topics, or whether all such subjects are potentially worthy. The standstill would give a time for that discussion to take place, centralized, and publicized so that it draws in more than just the two active factions. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::: (after ec) Vecrumba, I'm not sure you've really looked into this matter. Take a look at the article creation log for the indef-blocked sockpuppet {{user|Groubani}} here . Also look at the total failure of ] which started sometime in the middle of April. Most of the articles have been around for a long time and there has been no "bubbling." In many cases where there has been bubbling, some of us feel that they are "puff-bubbles." (i.e. i once saw a reference that noted a passing similarity between costa rica and swiss banking laws that made "costa rica look like the switzerland of latin america" used in an effort to establish they had a notable bilateral relationship). There is no need for separate notability criteria for this class of article. The only reason this class has become "special" is because we tolerated serial, unsourced stub creation (it's amazing to me that we allow the creation of unsourced articles -- even BLPS -- every day by irresponsible editors) by a user making some kind of weird point. At any rate, an effort to create a special set of guidelines for these articles failed rather spectacularly, as any effort at the moment (not much time has passed since that resounding failure) will likewise fail. The answer is for users interested in the topic, to evaulate these articles on a case by case basis, with the outcome in some cases being deletin and others retention, just like every other article on wikipedia. I'm sorry people are upset that, well, that editors here might hold strong and opposing viewpoints. But wishing that away, or dismissing the real questions at play here about content guidelines as "disruptive" is not healthy for wikipedia.] (]) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: My response was based on my personal experiences in my neck of the "A-B relations". I did look through ] since and I have to agree that as a whole it has been a spectacular failure. In all honesty, I did the math myself some time ago on the minimum number of articles (all combinations of U.N. members taken 2 at a time). I do have to observe that a more manageable solution might be{{mdash}}as has been suggested{{mdash}}"Foreign relations of A". Any significant relationship can be denoted with a "A-xyz relations" category being defined and noted for the article. That way one can answer "does Chile have any interesting relationship with Estonia?" without a Chile-Estonia relations article. "A-B relations" would revert to being reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: Yes i agree that "a-b relations" articles should be "reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study." But you will never get consensus for this proposal at the moment. A number of people will even call you mean names for requiring that the topic of an article in and of itself be the subject of in depth coverage.] (]) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*I also think a standstill is a great idea, since I believe (as do, I think, DGG, A Nobody, and others) that it is easier, more inviting, for editors to fill in the blanks, so to speak, than to start from scratch. That's how it works for me. The flood of AfDs prompted a bunch of people to get to work on the stubs with some decent results, but that initial enthusiasm to save them seems to have waned a little--certainly in my case. That these things were created en masse is unfortunate, of course, but these many, many nominations only antagonize editors. Let's leave them be. They're here, many of them are not great articles, many might be deleted later on. But let's leave it for now. ] (]) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
** Some editors feel atagonized by the existence of non-notable "topics" unsupported by any reliable sources. Some other editors feel that any combination of x-y is, ipso facto, notable. Why should the AFD process be suspended to spare the annoyance of some, while adding to the annoyance of others? Is there some better community way for sorting out what should be included than afd? No one has proposed anything remotely workable in the months that this has been going on.] (]) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
****Cutting in here--Bali, you and I have butted heads on a couple of those, and have agreed on a few others. I personally take offense at unsupported articles, and I don't believe that ''every'' combination is notable. But it's a given that we have these stubs, and that apparently AfD is the only way to get rid of them (by deletion or by improvement--and I know that AfD is not for article improvement, but we all know that's how it often goes anyway). An AfD discussion should take some time, and I have not voted on a lot of them simply because I didn't have time to look into them. You may have noted that I did not copy and paste my answers, and have voted delete on quite a few of them. Oddly enough, I do agree with you that there probably is no better way than AfD--but if our interest is improving the encyclopedia, and if we agree that (at least some of) articles that were kept are now indeed worth keeping, and that improvement has come about precisely because stubborn editors (I won't name names, but I have been stubborn on occasion) have fought tooth and nail and have found and added sources and significantly rewritten articles *deep breath* well, if all that is true, then a slow trickle of those articles at AfD rather than a flood can only improve the project as a whole. Some will get deleted, some will be (improved and) kept. ] (]) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*** I think if anyone had stopped to do the math before thinking "A-B relations" were a good article to have, we wouldn't be in this mess. When articles are generated based on mathematical combinations and not topics explored in secondary source materials, nothing good is bound to come of it.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;In all of this I "voted" for Chile-Estonia as significant for my editorial reasons; that, based on "'''as long as we're going to have A-B relations articles''', then there are items here of significance that merit being in such an article." If, on the other hand, that were a category (at best) and the normal thing to do was to document Chile-related items in a "Foreign relations of Estonia" article, that would have been just as fine.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; The ''mere existence'' of this type of article is what has led to the intractability of the morass.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; This issue can only be solved by appropriately combining the articles into the appropriate "Foreign relations of..." articles and then delete all A-B relations articles except, as mentioned, those involving areas of significant scholarly study. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
**Drmies, you illuminate another problem: Misplaced Pages is created by volunteers and articles are created and improved because people want to do it, not because one user matches every object in a set to every other object in the set. 95% of the non-notable ones wouldn't have been created in the first place because they aren't notable and no one would have wanted to create them. The normal flow of article creation was interrupted by this one user in a cataclysmic event. Now we have all the articles to deal with. Why not move them out of the main space into user space and then let people work on them when and if they choose to do so? I don't have a problem with that at all. But some people don't want to let even one of these articles be deleted. Let's remember that they shouldn't exist in the first place and restore the status quo ante bellum by moving them out of the user space. Also, let's not forget that articles can be undeleted. ] (]) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
***I know, Drawn Some. But I'll say what I said before: a bad article is for many editors a reason to work on it. I would NEVER consider making something up out of whole cloth on, say, relations between Mexico and Belgium. (Never mind that I'm Dutch and am not supposed to care for the Belgians.) Yet AfD alerted me to the article, and it's really kind of interesting (the Belgians bringing beer to Mexico?), and I found a book (''De Belgen en Mexico''), and then Richard Arthur Norton, like a terrier, bit into the article and is not letting go... As I mentioned above, AfD is fine with me--I think it's fair, usually anyway, and for better or worse it's a forum of sorts. Yes, again, they probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, and maybe the majority of them might end up getting deleted, but they do exist, and my interest here is to make something good come out of it. Thanks, and I'll see you at the next one, I guess! ;)] (]) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Full steam ahead on all fronts!!! ] (]) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
**Why? Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Time stands still for no one, not even a nobody. I don't think a work stoppage is enforceable. We're not a union. ] (]) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::What happened that made ChildofMidnight come out and speak up on a ''real'' topic? Ran out of bacon topics, did you? ] (]) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::At the same time, I do not see why we should allow a handful of accounts to act as self-appointed policemen with regards to a certain type of article. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::My opposition to a break in the dispute is not adamant, only ardent. Consensus seems to be generally in favor of an informal peace. This will provide time to get started on the much needed multilateral relations articles. ] (]) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


:So there's two things here.
===Arbitrary break===
:* First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is '''not''' vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than ] (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
If anyone has read this far, then it will be obvious just what kind of deadlock this dispute is in: both sides are talking at or past each other, & not at all listening to one another. This is why, after a month, I walked away from this mess. I tried to propose that ''some articles'' in this genre were notable, yet had my efforts rebuffed. I would rather spend my time working on content than arguing endlessly in AfD. Maybe if we subject all of this to a 12-month moratorium, the less reasonable people in this dispute will get themselves banned from Misplaced Pages for their habitual misbehavior & the rest of us then can come to a consensus on this issue. -- ] (]) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional".
:I cuncur with Llywrch that a 12 month stop would be better. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: For what it's worth, "A-B relations" is unworkable because it is simply an unusable framework. To read about the "Foreign relations of X" one has to sift through a 100+ collection of stubs and articles? Think about it. I struck my earlier comments supporting the moratorium (which were based on my earlier more parochial experiences). We need an elimination, not a moratorium. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. ] (]) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*No one has suggested that they all need to be deleted or that none of them are notable. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of them that are notable but that leaves thousands of A-B intersections that aren't. No one has said Colombia-Venezuela or Israel-Egypt or US-Mexico relations should be deleted. In investigating certain stubs I have been surprised at what I have learned. ] (]) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Vandalism has a '''very''' specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see ] for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is '''not''' vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly '''not''' vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
**Actually a few accounts have said to delete ] when the countries in question actually border each other, have been ''the'' subject or reliable, independent sources due to their border conflict issues. It is from such discussions as this example that some indeed are indiscriminately saying to delete pretty much all of them rather than working to improve them. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Ok thank you for telling me ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: ] is not a good example, it was originally created in good faith as ] and referring to the combined land mass . Many in the AfD said this was a misdirected create and that they would not support Indonesia '''and''' PNG but rather ] including me and I have since changed my vote to keep. ] (]) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:Where are the ]? ] (]) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::How much better would it have been instead of saying to delete initially to have just proactively moved it as I did and started the article that everyone seems to think is now an acceptable start instead? I never get why anyone would say someone should do something instead of just doing it his or herself when he or she is indeed capable and able to do so. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--] (]) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::of course that is possible, but if the AfD was originally listed as ] it would have got a lot more keep even if it was a stub. In fact, that's the first X and Y article I've seen nominated, and it's not in the same class as X-Y relations. so let's forget this example. ] (]) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*:I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, but we are urged to be ] and what I did to improve this content I am confident my colleagues in the discussion are also capable of doing as well. Please remember that deletion is supposed to be a last resort per ] and as such, editors should try renames, merges, etc. first and then when all else fails take it to AfD. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*::Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
***That's why we have a discussion at AfD, to share ideas and come to the right decision. Also, just because two countries share a border does not mean that their bilateral relations are notable. The relations probably are notable but we use Misplaced Pages guidelines on notability to make a determination. Once again your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*:::To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they ''initially'' reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear ]. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
****Fortunately, my way of thinking about these things is consistent with the majority of our editors and readers, which is why we have no need to kowtow to a minority viewpoint that is inconsistent with established consensus, which overwhelmingly suggests these notable articles are worth including here. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*****Knock off the cheap shots at other editors. Your reply above is strong evidence of Llywrch's comment that too many editors are stuck on the rightness of their position. Also, cowtow, not cowtail. ] (]) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC) *:I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
******I agree that Drawn Some should not make cheap shots at other editors. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) *::That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--] (]) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*******Har-har. I was talking to you. Stop baiting him. ] (]) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) *:::I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator ] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
********An editor should not bait another by saying that "your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia," which any reasonable editor would respond to in at least the manner that I did, although many might respond much more harshly. I can only take seriously any comments that first takes issue with that initial post. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*:::::Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad ] (]) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*********For a guy who spends an awful lot of time monitoring others, you sure seem unable to be the bigger man when you are involved in something yourself. Be the bigger man, and move on. Besides, DS is bringing up issues as he goes, and it doesn't look like you're in a vast majority. learn to move on, or stop commenting so often on the behavior of others. Hypocrisy's a poor color for anyone to wear. ] (]) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
**********Yes, his post probably should not have been dignified by a reply in the first place and it is exactly hypocrisy that concerns me, i.e. saying something to me while ignoring the initial less than civil comment I replied to in the first place. Regards, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC) *:::::Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had ''no right'' to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--] (]) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
******It's really "kowtow". ] (]) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said '''Do not edit the page''' ] (]) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*******Well, I agree with you on that one per ]. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*::::::The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' All of these articles have ''possible'' value. Until we've established how useful we think that is, there's no reason to get rid of them one by one. ] ] 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*{{ec}} There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed ''"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below"'' with the bright red ''"Please do not modify it"'' at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: That really doesn't make much sense. ''Some'' of the articles have value and ''some'' do not. How do you propose we sort out which is which if not "one by one?" I have seen no one with a proposal for a new method yet that would have any chance of adoption. Does anyone have one? ] (]) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*:I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. ] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: That's the whole point of the standstill: to remove everyone from the immediate "must rescue/must delete '''this article''' RIGHT NOW" attitude and give everyone some breathing room to calmly work on a consensus guideline for this.--] (]) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*:He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The obvious solution is not a standstill or moratorium but removing the articles from the main space. That eliminates all time pressure. People who want to work on them may do so as they are interested and at their leisure. If a non-notable article is introduced into the main space it can be brought to AfD as all articles are. The problem is we have hundreds of non-notable articles in the main space that were dumped there by a rogue editor now banned. Undo that damage that he caused. No one is hurt, everyone is happy. ] (]) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: About two months was spent on developing this white whale of a special conesensus guideline. And that conversation was an epic fail. Why would it be any different in anothe month? Special notability guidelines (which will never get consensus) aren't what's needed. What's needed is case by case evaluation, which is ongoing. Some hopeless articles have been deleted, some have been demonstrated to be notable (i.e. PNG-Indo, which will rightfully sail through afd with hardly any opposition) and some have muddled through as no consensus and will need to looked at again in six months or a year. This is all a ''good'' thing. Ostriching over the issue (and the meta issue of unsourced content more generally, and the way we're allowing original research to proliferate) will not help matters. Awright, i've said my piece enough on this thread.] (]) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:*{{tq|without the presence of diffs}}. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why does the ] based on the US State Department website, and the same rational is used to delete other smaller countries stubs? Misplaced Pages "contains elements of an almanac" according to Pillar I. What good is an almanac if it only contains information on the United States? We are supposed to be eliminating regional bias, not increasing it. An almanac just has to be verifiable, we accept all townships as notable on the same concept and use a dump of census data from the United States Census Bureau as the sole source. --] (]) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:*:* ''Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. '' Now.... where is the trout? ]&thinsp;] 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I actually support deleting many of those US-very small country stubs as most of them can be merged into Foreign relations of Smaller country X. ] (]) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:*:Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with LibStar, every article on a topic not notable by Misplaced Pages guidelines should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages incorporates elements of almanacs but see ]. ] (]) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::] points to raw statistics. You do know what a statistic is right? It is some numerical value. I don't see this at all in any of the articles under discussion. This is another red herring. --] (]) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That shortcut should be speedily deleted as it is inconsistent with our ]. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::In reference to the above comment, I would like administrators to note that A Nobody has already proceeded to change[REDACTED] policies in order to suit his own interpretations, by simply deleting the <s>section</s> reference to ] Drawn Some cited above: and again . Is it clear by now that some users are pushing a marginal interpretation instead of consensus by any means necessary? ] (]) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Who added that minority and consensus lacking viewpoint to Not in the first place as it clearly contradicts our much older and consensus backed ]. In any event, we cannot have contradictory policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, everybody is wrong but you. I know the drill. ] (]) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was . Now looking at ] from , I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::1. No guideline has ever said "we are an almanac". 2. The claim about time precedence is ignoratio elenchi and special pleading, misconstruing the mechanisms driving wikipedia. I shall ignore it as such. 3. The entire text accompanying that caption, which ''is'' the result of consensus, still evidently contradicts your claim about the "almanac" importance of factoids. 4. Not seeking every possible input at the exact same moment is not the same as lacking consensus, but time can verify that consensus. As it has. 5. My part in this discussion ends here, because I sense it won't be long before A Nobody will start over again with the same arguments (as has happened in the past), and following that trail will leads nowhere. I posted this here for other users, preferably admins, to assess what's going on. If anyone needs further comments from me, let them contact me on my talk page. ] (]) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::What consensus backed discussion has ever said we are not an almanac? Also, the disputed addition only appeared on , i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as ] and ] and ] hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::A Nobody, the First Pillar of Misplaced Pages itself contradicts you. It says Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of... almanacs.... ''' Elements of''' is important. If you're going to refer to text make sure it actually supports what your are saying, people are familiar with things and some even check on sources. ] (]) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::It also says we incorportae "elements" of encyclopedias, so by your logic, we would "not" be an encyclopedia either. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::WP:NOT#ALMANAC was a redirect using the wrong synonym to point to ''Misplaced Pages is not raw statistics''. No almanac I know of is comprised of raw statistics, all info is in tables and comes with explanatory information. --] (]) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''': 12 months? That is absurd on its face. A year of leaving non-notable articles in place? No thank you. A shorter date might be agreeable, but 12 months? Come on. ] (]) 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


*Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who ''origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open'' . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which ''is'' technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were ] to revert a ]. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit ''after'' having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote ''again'' , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used ''at all'' in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no ''violation'' at all, and the only thing needed here is a ] or at least a {{tl|trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
===Another arbitrary break===
{{Abot}}
*'''Support''' my own proposal. Stifle approached me about this early yesterday on my talk page, and I was delighted to agree; I suggested some modifications in wording, not in principle, which he accepted. He and I tend to disagree about standards of notability and quite a number of other things, but from any reasonable point of view the situation was becoming intolerable. I can accept if necessary an encyclopedia with most of these deleted; I hope Stifle can accept one with most of them kept; what neither of us can accept is an encyclopedia with a random selection of them. Nor do we want to devote the bulk of our energies on WP to arguing about this particular group of articles. At present the settlement of these depends mostly on how much pressure the various sides exert, on on the very varied personal view of whoever chooses to close, and neither of these is sensible. The only people who would oppose finding some means of accommodation here are those who would rather get their own way on some articles, however few, than accept a consistent compromise, and that does not help build a good encyclopedia. In practice the arguments at present depend on whether particular sources found are important enough, but the views expressed on that depend not on the facts of the actual case, but the general idea of keeping or deleting the articles. As I see it, whether the sources are significant depends upon the intended scope of these articles--whether to accept relations in the broad sense or interpret it as formal diplomatic relations only, and if we approach it this way, we may yet agree. We must have a rational procedure for resolving stalemates other than mutual exhaustion. That is what we have used in the past, and I hope nobody will support continuing that way, because it decision essentially by trial by ordeal, more specifically . I'd rather lose arguments than have them decided that way. Civilized people rejected that method of decision in more important matters many centuries ago. It's time we followed suite. ''']''' (]) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:What you're saying is not untrue but it misses the essence of the situation, that a bunch of articles were created without consensus and contrary to our normal flow of article creation and they were dumped into the article space and many of them are on non-notable topics and shouldn't be in main space. It would be better to remove them all from the main space to eliminate the time pressure and work on them at our leisure and on the ones we are interested in as we normally do. All of our processes and guidelines support that normal process and the problem is not with the process but with the dumptruck full of ill-conceived articles dumped into it. Remove that mess. ] (]) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*I am inclined to view this proposal favorably. The AfD process is perfectly suited to deal with articles on an ad hoc basis. This is fine for the normal random mix, but it can break down under the weight of sheer numbers. There is no good reason to burden that system with constantly re-deciding what is essentially one issue. As the proposers of this respite point out, the outcome of the AfD discussions currently is not a function of which articles truly are notable, but instead a function of who shows up to argue on a particular case. The repetitive nature of these discussions has the effect of self-selecting for the editors who feel most strongly about the subject, to the exclusion of those who have not become so firmly entrenched. I think it is worth a break to try to engage some of this latter class of editors into the process, and hope for a new perspective. ] ] ] 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


== Ban appeal from Rathfelder ==
* A comment from a completely non-involved editor: I haven't commented on a single A-B relations AfD, nor do I have any real opinion on whether these articles are generally good or generally bad. I have read some, but by no means all, of the discussion on this topic and would like to offer a neutral observation.
::First of all, some sort of calming of the situation is needed. There is no way anyone can cognitively evaluate dozens of relations a day (as has often sent to AfD). Not surprisingly, given the volume of AfDs, people on both sides will fall back on standard arguments and not truly evaluate the case at hand. Further, both sides are so entrenched in their view that any attempts to provide evidence in a particular case will mostly just be dismissed by the other side. The community is definitely not served by rehashing the same basic argument hundreds of times. At the current pace, good editors are bound to burn out and leave the project entirely.
::Second, this thread is strong evidence of how deeply the conflict runs. People on the "delete most" will largely argue that a moratorium is bad unless the "junk stubs" are deleted first. People on the "keep most" side will argue against any attempts to move "junk stubs" outside of article space. As someone who doesn't really care if these stay or go in the end, I would say there is very little harm leaving things the way they are until people have had a chance to cool down. Misplaced Pages's default policy normally is to keep things the way they are when there is a dispute.
::Third, a break from the daily AfDs might not resolve the problem, but it couldn't hurt. When a page is being edit warred over, we protect the page to force discussion. While not an identical situation, of course, I feel it would be a good idea to force discussion into one location, rather than hundreds of AfDs, for now. Without the pressure of "saving" or "removing" A-B "right now", there is at least some chance that the situation will calm itself and the sides can start working towards a reasonable compromise.
::Now, some will say the stubs harm Misplaced Pages, or stopping the normal process harm Misplaced Pages. They may be right, but I feel far greater harm will come if the situation is continues on its current path. ] and waiting a little bit to give the situation a chance to calm itself down is highly advisable, In my opinion. Thus I '''support''' the proposal as written. --] (]) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (aUTC)
:You're greatly overestimating the number of bilateral relations AfDs daily.
:6/10 - 2
:6/9 - 4, one of which was shut down procedurally even though the relations are non-notable
:6/8 - 3
:6/7 - 2
:6/6 - 1
:6/5 - 3
:6/4 - 2
:etc.
:So the problem is not fatigue caused by evaluating "dozens" daily.
:Neither is the conflict over bilateral relations articles, it's over whether or not Misplaced Pages guidelines for notability should be followed or whether anything verifiable should be in the encyclopedia.
:If the default is to keep things the way they are, it should be the state prior to the dumping of hundreds or thousands of articles on non-notable subjects into the main space by a now-banned editor. When vandalism is committed the default isn't the state of vandalization, it's the state prior to the act. Same principle should apply here. Move the articles out of main space if you want to stop action on them but don't interrupt Misplaced Pages's processes in an attempt to "fix" an interruption of Misplaced Pages's processes, that's only compounding the damage. ] (]) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with the proviso that someone get to work on developing ] during the month-long freeze. I am normally adamant against the creation of new notability sub-guidelines, but even I have my breaking point. We need community driven guidance, and while ] ''should be enough'', it clearly ''is not'' else we would not be here right now. What the community needs is a clear set of guidelines as to which sets of articles are likely notable and which are likely not, or else this will all just start up again when the editing freeze ends in a month. --].].] 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


* {{userlinks|Rathfelder}}
*'''Oppose''' This appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the results (or, to be precise, lack thereof) at ]. There is no consensus at all that a notability guideline is needed (see, for example, ] and no clear views on what such a guideline should include. By definition, guidelines have no hope of being completed or adopted if editors don't think that they're needed and can't agree on their content. As such, there's no reason to suspend AfDs to facilitate something which isn't going to happen. ] (]) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
* ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
* ] declined by the community
* ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ]


Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
*'''Support'''—''Provided'' that the freeze is time-limited, the moratorium on creating new X-Y relations stubs/articles is vigorously enforced, and AfDs that already in progress when the freeze comes into effect are allowed to run their course. These are all element of current/original Stifle-DGG proposal, and losing any of them would be a deal breaker for me. I would add that for AfDs already running if & when the freeze is affected, the existence of the freeze ''should not'' be considered a valid reason to !vote keep, and closing admins should disregard any !votes using this logic.<p>Also, I do not support a freeze solely for the sake of a freeze. Let's use this time to draft some binding notability guidelines ''or at least try.'' I realize there is currently a large chasm between two camps, but I think that if we can come to some agreement around the edges, it will still be better than the current situation even if we still leave a large gray area in the middle . So a suggestion: rather than formulate competing sets guidelines, none of which are likely to stand much of chance of gainng consensus, perhaps we could come up with an array of elements of a guideline, and !vote on each one seperately. At the end of the freeze, which ever elements have consensus would become the guideline. That guideline would probably still have a huge gray area, and there would always be a need to deal with some, maybe most, pairings on a case by case basis, but I believe it would be better than what we've got now, which is just the ]. (] would still apply, but the emergent guideline for X-Y relations would hopefully help apply ] to these specific cases.) Some examples elements of a guideline that I hope would gain immediate consensus include:
{{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br>
::*In general, X-Y relations are not inherently notable.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::*Relations between any two countries that share a land border are alway notable.
::*Relations between states that, in modern history (20th century), were formerly part of the same country are always notable, i.e. relations among former Soviet states with one another, or relations between states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia.
::*Websites of X & Y's governments can generally be used verify facts in an X-Y relations article, but coverage of the topic of X-Y relations in these sites does not, by itself, establish notability of the topic.
::*Relations between countries having fought a war are generally notable, with the exception of fighting as part of a multination coalition. For example, the Falklands war is enough to establish that British-Argentine relations are notable, but that the fact Polish troops were part of the coalition in Iraq does not, by itself, establish that Poland-Iraq relations are notable.
::*Etc.
:So I think getting consensus on as many little points like these as possible would be useful. There's a lot a gray area in ] and disagreements about how to interpret it. Even if the exercise only narrows that gray area a little and/or clarifies it only slightly, I still think we'd be better off for it. ] <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;">]</sub> 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There was already a lengthy discussion on what to do with the information in these pitiful stub articles without actually keeping pitiful stub articles on Misplaced Pages. Most of this work of merging was spearheaded by ], but unfortunately he seems to be on an enforced wikibreak for several weeks, so I don't know the status of it or who's taken up the task in the interim. In any case, even then, bringing up articles with valid concerns against them to AfD was never decided to be suspended by concensus, and I see no reason to do so here, given the ability of these articles to be userfied or the ability of users to merge the (scant) information to another article within the week provided. I see no compelling reason not to continue to bring up these articles at AfD, only to end their creation. --]]] 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.''' The wikiphilosophical drama surrounding these articles is a waste of time only for those who choose to participate in it. Individual AfDs are a perfectly suitable forum in which to address the issue of their inclusion. Closing admins can give proper weight to the arguments expressed, so bloc voting should in principle not be a problem. We will probably end up with an encyclopedia with a random selection of them, as DGG fears, but these will tend to be the more notable or otherwise interesting ones, so I'm inclined to see this as a feature rather than a bug. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*We need to do '''something'''. Editors concerned with this matter are dividing into mutually-opposing camps, and it's having an unnecessarily divisive effect.<p>Normally I would agree with Sandstein, but the trouble is that the results of the AfDs are not being accepted by either side. Instead, we have significant numbers of them ending up at DRV or being inappropriately relisted at AfD (in one recent case, less than a month after closure as "keep"!) because there's a determination among some parties to see these articles destroyed or killed with fire, and a determination among other parties to retain them, at any cost.<p>What I'm saying is that this content issue is in danger of becoming a very messy conduct issue and inaction will not do.<p>Also, inaction leaves us open to future editors repeating a similar exercise for purely disruptive purposes.<p>So if you don't like the Stifle/DGG proposal, ''come up with a better one'' that doesn't involve trying to cope with the whole morass of articles via one of the usual routes.—] ]/] 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' (as if it wasn't clear, but since we're in "It's not a "vote" it's a "!vote" mode...). Sandstein i think puts it very well. There is no better system for hashing out these kinds of disputes than the one in place. The insistence that i come up with some better system to replace this one because it's "messy" seems to misunderstand the fundamental messyness of people when they disagree. These disputes need to be aired and debated. And ''not'' airing and debating them in well-established (albiet creaky and imperfect) forums is a terrible idea.] (]) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


*'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Warn and then topic ban disruptive editors''' Continually ignoring Misplaced Pages consensus as expressed in notablility guidelines is disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Editors are free to disagree with guidelines and to try to change them but to continually disregard them at AfD in order to interrupt the process of deleting articles on non-notable topics should be grounds for a topic ban from the AfD board. ] is very clear about the need for article topics to be notable. Let's stop pretending that a break or process change will solve the problem. We have a bunch of articles that are on non-notable topics and they need to be removed from the article space. If an editor tries to interfere with that process by ignoring consensus, warn and then ban. ] (]) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Because the problem really isn't an intractable one over nationalistic or ethnic feelings, but that two groups have gotten themselves stuck together like two mountain goats who have locked horns. Both sides simply need to walk away from this for a while, work on something else, then return refreshed & with a clean slate. I offer proof of this with one example: a while ago I created ] because I found I honestly could not create it. (Unrelated to this dispute, I have been trying hard not to create any new articles; for the most part, I have succeeded.) Then someone I exchanged heated words with, LibStar, saw the article, ''and improved it''. I left a note thanking him for it, & we've been able to collaborate more or less successfully on the article since then -- which is the ideal of Misplaced Pages. (The irony of this instance is that much of the content of the article is duplicated in ], where it could be argued it makes more sense -- or ] -- & in a less hostile environment we could have an amenable discussion about a possible merge.) -- ] (]) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to ''The Times'', so was not in wikivoice. ] (]) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. ] (]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - ] ] 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support'''; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding {{xt|articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment}}, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section ''before'' making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. ] (]) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. {{u|Robert McClenon}} says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. ] ] 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::If I’m not unmistaken ] was banned by ''ArbCom'', not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic ] actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here ''longer''. ] (]) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. ] ] 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] (]) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. ] (]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a ''de facto'' one. This is a feature, not a bug. ] (]) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit ==
**The purpose of our suggestion is to not change the general rules for resolving disputes over article notability, or changing the deletion procedure. Normally, I;d tend to agree with Sandstein's overall position: the WP concept of deciding article by article has merit--it prevents a small cadre from trying at some obscure policy decision to foreclose debate on a general matter. Small groups may be best for deciding technical matters, but then whatever they do needs to be exposed by the community and supported by it. Similarly in the opposite situation, in cases where the need for a supermajority prevents making formal policy, as for schools, the practical consistent decisions at individual article discussions can be effectively broadly supported policy. This suits me fine personally, because normally I am much more willing to do immediate time-limited advocacy than trying to fine-tune rules in interminable policy discussions which come to no stable conclusion.
{{atopr
:But this is an exceptional situation. The sheer number of these articles prevents rational action. The quantity that are likely to be nominated for deletion and come to AfD greatly exceeds those we have already dealt with. The creation of these articles in this manner was wrong from the start, but given their presence , we must deal somehow with them. A method of sorting that gives 10% error is tolerable--actually I doubt AfD routinely does much better than that. sa method that gets 40% of them wrong is not much better than random, and not worth the detailed and extensive effort this is taking from dozens of people. In much simpler cases, this could perhaps be dealt with by batch nominations, but it has turned out in every batch proposed that some of two of them were much differently notable than the others & it can't really be decided without detailed work on sourcing each of them--sometimes discouragingly without success. This is not a fundamental dispute over the level of notability, but a question about a new type of article for which the old ways don't seem to work very well. The obvious thing to do would seem to be devise new ones. Not that I expect to like the new ones 100%, and neither would Stifle, but we can agree on something better. One cannot reach a compromise while the matters subject to compromise are unreasonably vanishing or unreasonably being kept, and where each decision reasonable or not is appealed individually. There are 3 rational things to do: throw them all out & wait till someone does them right, keep them all in and hope that someone does them right, or figure out how to sort them into those capable of rapid improvement and those incapable. This is not a topic I really care to work on personally, and I'd be glad of almost any stable compromise. The point of this is to free up AfD for the things we need to do there individually. ''']''' (]) 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
| result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I only support this till June 30 and a review thereafter if issues resurface again. I do not agree that somehow during this time (or longer), a new bilateral notability guideline will be magically developed given that 2 months ago people tried to and it got nowhere. I think it would be really difficult to get any consensus on a guideline. So I support this solely for people to calm down and get over it. I do not support attempts by stop nominations from any other process except gaining consensus here or ]. I do not support any admins taking matters into their own hands and unilaterally starting to block people for nominating AfDs without community consensus. So on that token, if this proposal fails, people should feel free to nominate for deletion or create as per usual. I will however abide by any decision reached by clear consensus here. ] (]) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I agree with everything Drawn Some has written, but I still would be happy to have a break to see if some better strategy can be determined. I would like some forum to be established where DGG and Stifle could moderate a discussion (please). There is no point in having a long ''is so'' vs ''is not'' hands-over-ears argument. Instead, I suggest a page with a '''Reasons to keep''' section that is edited by those in favor of keeping (no signatures; just edit to achieve the best argument), and another '''Reasons to delete''' section to be edited by those opposing. I would pick just one or two examples to discuss, say ]. Perhaps something could grow from that? I suppose those who want to keep many of the ''X–Y relations'' articles are frustrated with people like me who repeatedly say that a particular relation fails ] and should be deleted. But I am more frustrated because I don't see any response from the keepers other than to add a few more sourced factoids, then say that the source is notable, so the factoid and the relation must be notable also. There is no attempt by those supporting the articles to engage in what "notable" actually means, or to say what their favored outcome is (18,000 X-Y articles?). For example, there are '''no''' "keep" arguments at ]. So I want one page where one set of arguments can be tuned, and we'll what is the best from each side, and whether some compromise is possible. ] (]) 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' We need a[REDACTED] wide vote on the rules. As it is now, the policies and guidelines are determined by whatever small group of people can camp out there arguing the longest and get their way across. What you end up with, is the same arguments being made at the same types of AFD, this time national relationship articles. Sometimes they are kept, sometimes not, depending on whoever is around at the time to form a consensus, and the opinions of the closing administrator. Some wish to delete things outright, while others say leave them be, and others may expand on them over time. Some claim government websites shouldn't be used as references, because they don't trust governments, even when its just an announcement of a treaty which isn't something any nation would actually ever possibly have a reason to lie about. Some believe one nation once being a colony of another, and strongly influenced by them culturally is a notable relationship, while others do not. Same for economic treaties, one nation's troops inside another nation for peacekeeping or other reasons, and etc. Different opinions. We need to decide on what is acceptable, and what is not, before moving forward. ]''' 09:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' We're having the same argument at ] every time. Then re-arguing it at ]. The policy obviously needs to be clarified. I think we should try to resolve what the words "significant" and "trivial" with regard to sources in the ] really mean because that's where I see most of the problems arising. Is a visit by a head of state significant? Is the creation of an embassy? A big football game? Organizationally speaking, would this information fit best on a foreign relations article, a state to state relations article, or a specific article about that visit or embassy or football match? Is it against policy to have all three or is it just an aesthetic judgment? These things should have been clarified months ago but were not. In the interim, the Afd discussions have continued, resulting in a large amount of well sourced information being deleted (when it could have been merged but was not) and the acrimony between editors has increased. The pressure, on both sides, to just add votes instead facts to the Afd discussions has increased with the tidal wave of deletion nominations. This flood also prevents adequate research from being conducted to save worthy articles by the Article rescue Squad.--] (]) 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


::'''There is no flood of articles.''' I listed the numbers for the last week above and it is less than three a day, usually one or two. This perception that there is some huge number or that our process is flawed is not based in reality. ] (]) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC) :'''Oppose''' The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. ] ] 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::'''tidal wave'''? how about the super mega mega tidal wave of Groubani in producing 100s if not 1000s of stubs that has soaked up weeks of editors' time in cleaning it up? Groubani was only stopped after being banned for excessive stub creation. If Groubani actually researched which were notable or not, we wouldn't have this problem. ] (]) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': the crux of the problem here is insoluable without wider concensus on if these topics are notable or not. The issue here is that one group of editors is convinced they are inherently not, and therefore can accept no outcome but delte, while another group of editors is convinced they are, and can accept no outcome but keep. This has devolved into a drive to nominate all such articles to be deleted and vote them up/down as quickly as possible so the otherside can't "win". The utter failure of the two group's attempts at compromise shows this issue must be taken out of their hands entirely, and a wider community concensus developed on these articles as a class. Note, that if this pause is not used by uninvolved editors to develop such a concensus (and the willingness to enforce it thereafter) this silly battle will just start up again. ] (]) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
: '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support for one month'''. Beyond 30 days I would oppose. ] (]) 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ]&thinsp;] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support...kinda''' I opposed a blanket moratorium when it was proposed on WT:AFD (or someplace like that), because it seemed to me to be a tactical tool against opposition and a demand for inclusion masked by a call for consistency. I'm still worried that a similar freeze will result in the same outcome, but I don't really like the alternative. I will say that freezing these AfDs/articles and getting some centralized discussion '''will not''' resolve the dispute. I hate to shatter expectations here but the dispute isn't so much about the articles as it is about a philosophical stance regarding wikipedia. The articles themselves (like E&C articles before them and pokemon before them) are the impetus. we will not, at the end of 30 days, be any closer to agreement on where a line should be drawn demarcating the encyclopedia. At worst, we will sanction people who ignore this freeze and consider ourselves better off (the traditional DR result). At best we will come to some local agreement which '''''respects BOTH sides as bringing points to the table'''''. This "full speed ahead" crap or this "I think that nothing should be deleted" crap needs to be left out if any progress is to be made. I'm not optimistic, given that BOTH sides of the inclusion debate merrily torpedoed our last attempt at an amicable compromise over notability. But me being optimistic is not a necessary condition for action. ] (]) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. &spades;]&spades; ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Requesting info==
*'''Support suspending this ongoing battle''' I'm not bothered if this is for twelve or two-hundred months but this ongoing battling at AfD, DrV et al is draining on the community and forcing them to civilly engage or desist seems the best option. There are hundreds of articles in these groupings and by the looks of things at leats a few editors won't be happy until they can remove everyone they don't approve. I have little doubt we'll soon see a merging war as well so please consider a moritorium on that as well. Staying ''just within'' community standards is actually still violating the spirit of why we have standards including guidelines and policies. ] 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
*'''Support''' I propose that we form a committee of 2, DGG and Stifle, and let them come up with a way forward during those 30 days. (Oh, wait, they have lives elsewhere, damn). Seriously though, I do think the two of them could come up with something reasonable in a few hours. I personally think ] is the right way to go here. But the block voting is killer. ] (]) 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
| result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' we don't have a consensus on why relationships are notable, and we will keep not having it if we can't test it at AfD and see how articles are saved. Also, this would artificially prevent the removal of any relation that totally fails to pass ] because of utter lack of any source talking about the relationship. And if it doesn't pass WP:N, then it won't pass any future guidelines interpreting WP:N, so why should it be kept. --] (]) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
}}
Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.


I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
===Alternative Proposal===
How about a mass-removal of all these articles from the mainspace into a special userspace where those who like these articles can work on them in the meantime? They can be moved into the mainspace when some reasonable criteria are agreed.—] ]/] 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:You want to move all of them? That sounds like it'll complicate matters. I don't think anyone could realistically think that ] should be temporarily erased from a main article space and it will never happen. There would just be a fruitless discussion about which articles should be moved that would mirror the current discussion about which articles should be deleted. I oppose this proposal.--] (]) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support''' I offered the same proposal and support it. It completely eliminates the problem and everyone is happy. The non-notable articles are out of the main space and none are deleted so if anyone wants to work on them they can. We don't even need a special userspace, I volunteer mine and I'll be glad to help move the articles. I should be able to do about two a minute or over 100 an hour so it is doable. ] (]) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:#'''Question''' some of them are perfectly OK by anyone's conceivable standpoint with respect to notability, eg ], so I suppose you mean that this be done instead of deletion in all cases? Or just that closers consider this more frequently? ''']''' (]) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


:As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ]&thinsp;] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's articles should remain in one place, one namespace. There are no special cases to be made for certain classes of articles; forking is not a solution. (You could create a bilateral relations wiki if you'd like, though.) ] (]) 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Please Help Me! ==
:Many articles are drafted in userspace or project space. If the subject is notable the article should be in the mainspace, if the subject is not notable the article should be deleted, if the notability is unclear but there is a reasonable possibility it could be established through further editing, the article should be in user space or project space. In this case it would seem that project space would make the most sense. In fact we have WikiProjects with this in their scope, viz ]. Maybe a subpage or even a subproject of that project would be a good place to move these. Instead of a moratorium, we could continue with the current process but when an AFD consensus is unclear or particularly contentious move the article to project space for further work. When enough sources are available it could be moved back to the mainspace.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from ] but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from ], so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through ] due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing ] (]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, but in those cases, project space or user space is used as a sandbox for creating articles, or a workplace for improvements. There are a few wikiprojects doing that, but they plan to move the content in mainspace eventually. Doing so couldn't address the issue of notability for those 41 209 potential articles, anyway, which is the main problem. ] (]) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Bhairava7}} / {{u|Aarav200}}, please contact ca{{@}}wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See ] for details. ] (]) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing ] (]) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ] (]) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. ] (]) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. ] (]) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{re|ToBeFree|Sdrqaz}},I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. ] (]) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You are correct in your assessment of the problem. You need to divide by two for the potential number to account for Greece-Italy and Italy-Greece not being separate articles. The actual number is much lower. You may not realize that these articles were created by a now-banned user. Removing the articles from the main space would restore the status quo before that vandalism. ] (]) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


== BAG nomination ==
::::Yes, actually it makes 20 503 articles by excluding relations with oneself (with 203 states, based on ]). But that would be much work to move them somewhere else. And I don't see how it would address the main problem, their notability and the ensuing disputes, and there's the problem of which ones should be moved, I'm sure people would disagree and we may have arguments and maybe even move wars over this. Limiting the number of AFDs to give time to improve or merge those articles would be a better solution, in my opinion. ] (]) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::As Cenarium says. Removing all is overkill and will cause lots of complaints. And I'm not sure that this makes a good predecende, with a whole class of articles being downgraded to a second-grade tier. And specially since some have managed to pass AFD with flying colors after being improved, so we would be degrading those too. --] (]) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


== I need help from an admin - Urgent ==
===Proposed closing of consensus on June 17===
{{atop|1=I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Dear all, as Stifle started this ANI on June 10, I am proposing a non-involved admin to close this on June 17 and make a decision regarding on consensus of this proposal. If it is passed, I think the actual time of the proposal standstill is not clear as many editors differ on the timeframe. ] (]) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
*I concur with this proposal. If there is a consensus to enact it, I intend to begin work on notability criteria for FBR articles (along the lines of "topics with features A, B, and C are presumed to be notable, topics with no features other than X, Y, and Z are presumed not to be notable, and anything in between is a matter for discussion in each individual case"). ] (]) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*And just signing here to stop the bot archiving. ] (]) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help.
== ]/Vintagekits ==


Many thanks,
{{discussion top}}
Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:''A number of uninvolved admins have now reviewed and concluded no further action is merited. There is no evidence of sock-puppetry, no evidence the editors are perpetuating a hoax or spoof and no evidence of ongoing disruption. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)''
:There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read ] prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like to bring to your attention {{user|Vintagekits}} edits to the Charlie Zelenoff article and subsequent behavior. It's a spoof article that was just deleted for the third time. I was not aware at the time that two other editors had already separately deleted the article before I stumbled upon "see also" links to the article on a notable MMA fighter page (Kimbo Slice). Vintagekits claims he is not the UCLA student using the alias Charlie Zelenoff in a quest to become an internet sensation.
:What's the issue? ] (]/]) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::] probably needs blocking. ] (]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} ] (]/]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Relevant article:
:*{{al|An Orange from Jaffa}}
:OP possibly using multiple accounts:
:*{{checkUser|Mohamugha1}}
:*{{checkUser|MohammedAlmughanni}}
:] (]) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{noping|MohammedAlmughanni}} blocked as a sock. ] (]/]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Charlie_Zelenoff&action=edit&redlink=1
{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. ] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== EncycloDeterminate unblocked ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
Charlie Zelenoff is supposedly a notable boxer, however, upon investigation I found that the he only had 1 spoof fight that went half a round before he gave up against a fighter with a losing record. Vintagekits left a note on my page making it clear that we will have to endlessly delete the Charlie Zelenoff spoof page. He seems quite eager to continue wasting editors time.
{{ivmbox|1=Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of {{Userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}}, as it is no longer necessary.}}
For the Arbitration Committee, ] (] • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Here is what he wrote on my talk page:
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|EncycloDeterminate unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->


== Permission request ==
:"I'll take it that you actually havent got an answer as opposed to not wanting to continue the discussion. I think you are mixing up the terms "spoof" and "non-notable". In a !vote of 4:3 it has been deemed that at this moment he is not notable. However, with an upcoming fight next month there will be more material on Zelenoff and the likelihood that the article will be recreated. Personally, I look forward to it!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"
{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for ] editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you ] (]) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


:Looks like we’ve got another @] impersonator here. ''If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try…'' ]&thinsp;] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm the third editor who has had to deal with vintagekits on the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. I believe he may have a second editor alias that he uses to agree with himself by the name of {{user|LiamE}}
::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Proposed community ban of Marginataen ==
I've encouraged him to move onto greener pastures, but he seems intent upon being a disruptive force on Misplaced Pages and reposting articles that have been deleted multiple times. I propose that he be banned from editing the Charlie Zelenoff page and that a quick search be done to see if he's using multiple editor names to create a false consensus. ] (]) 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|status=Community ban imposed|1=This clearly fall sunder the {{tqq|except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours}} condition of ]. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Marginataen}}
This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a ]), and two days after their last unblock, they were ], as ]. Well they've gone back to ]; their are a good sampler. Despite being ] that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have ] for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.


They clearly have extreme ] problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which ] Manual of Style violations of ]. Furthermore, in the light of ] (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their ] of the spin-off article ] might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. ] (]) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think you want to be careful who you are accusing of what there matey. I think your lack of assumption of good faith on my part and that of Vintagekits does you no favours. A quick glance at the edit histories of myself and Vintagekits would assure any sane person that we are most certainly seperate individuals. As for your assertions that Zelenhoff's fight was a "spoof" I think you need to look a bit closer at the facts of the matter. The fight was reffed by a professional judge who has reffed fights for the likes of Bruce Seldon, Donny Lalonde and Iran Barkley and was licenced by the state board. It was, most certainly, a pro fight. Furthermore your dismissal of his notability flies in the face of the great deal of internet chatter about him. I have seen a single forum discussion thread on him with over a third of a million hits and something like 55000 replies. Now I realise most of the chatter centres around how remarkably bad he is at his chosen profession but the fact he is more infamous than famous should not be a bar to having an article on him. If it were we should go ahead and remove articles on Eric Crumble and Eddy the Eagle for starters. Now, I won't recreate the article as it was deleted but it is only a matter of time before someone else recreates it as it is exactly the sort of thing that some people will look to find here. The deleted article was factual and sourced and pretty well written. He is a current pro boxer with another fight lined up. How many fights will he have to have (and most probably lose) before you accept he warrants an article? --] (]) 05:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*A. I am not quite sure what exactly I am being accused of here to be honest. is he saying I am Zelenoff?
*B. One point that sticks out is that Lordvolton doesnt seem to know the difference between "non notable" and "fake"/"spoof". Its something I have asked him to explain on a number of occasions without success. One thing that cannot be argued is that .
*C. I participated in ] of Zelenoff and the closing admin made some rather interesting analysis which I dont really consider valid but hey-ho thats the way it gos sometimes. I have no problem with that and actually had a rather muture discussion with him ] about it.
*D. Actually it was Lordvolton that nominated Zelenoff for deletion. Again I have no problem with that - the guy (Zelenoff) is an idiot and has had only one fight and lost that - so he is entitled to do that. However, what he also did whilst the AfD was proceeding was remove all the redirects and references to Zelenoff on other pages. He was asked to stop this and explain his actions on two occasions, ] and ] but continued and never answered. Infact I really struggle to have any kind of policy based discussion with the guy and find him pretty irrational (like I find being reported here for this a little absured!). I am not sure I could have interacted with the guy in a more patient and balanced manner.
*E. I notice that this seems to be a recurring theme with Lordvolton who seems to consider AfD as personal attacks. In ] that it followed a similar pattern and that he was blocked for incivility and warned about canvassing.
*F. It reminds me of the situation with ] when that article was AfD twice prior to sufficient secondary sources worked there way through to mainstream media - the difference being that Slice is pretty good and Zelenoff is embarrassingly bad. What does this LordZolton guy want? a complete ban on the article ever being created again? That isn't going to happen in my opinion - Zelenoff has a second professional fight coming up next month and hopefully there will be new sources that come forward to justify an article - if not then it will stay deleted. I would be happy if more and better sources do come forward. Until then he will just have to stay an .--] (]) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


:{{midsize|(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.)}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
As the admin who closed the Charlie Zelenoff AFD, I think I'll add a few comments. I have no evidence that either Vintagekits or LiamE have behaved inappropriately here. While they disagreed with my closure of the AFD, and quite strongly, both of them were civil about it, and have abided by the decision. The deletion log does not show any recreation of that article since the AFD was closed.
:'''Support'''. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. ] 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Per proposal. --] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. &spades;]&spades; ] 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: {{u|Tamborg}}, {{u|Bubfernr}}, and {{u|LatteDK}}. There may be others that I have missed. ] (]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support.''' <s>I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...</s> Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently ] Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen ]: ''"Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates"''. And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to ] ] articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps ]. Hopeless. Block. — ] (]) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - Gotta play by the rules. ] (]) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. ] (]) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a ] problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. ] (]) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. ] (]) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:TWC DC1 ==
The first deletion was an A7 speedy delete, and recreating an article which does assert notability is routine practice. DGG who deleted the article a second time made a selective restoration of the article upon request, so I see no edit-warring or other inappropriate behavior there either.
{{atop
| result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


I recommend issuing a warning to ], as their actions appear to be ]. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --] (]) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I gather that Vintagekits and LiamE have an interest in reposting an article when the person becomes more notable (i.e. fights more matches), which is an accepted Misplaced Pages practice although a draft in userspace for community review is perhaps the best approach.
{{abot}}


== G7 request by a blocked account ==
There is clearly a measure of disagreement on whether "internet fame" is a sufficient grounds for calling someone notable, as well as whether boxers like Mr. Zelenoff who are officially "professional", yet have not produced results which they can build a career on. In the AFD I closed, I felt the consensus, as well as the arguments, supported deletion; but it was not a unanimous decision. The people who argued to keep the article were not being stupid in their arguments. ] ] 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=G7'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:Sjakkalle, I will create a Zelenoff page in my user space and as and when new sources come to hand I will add them. I will then give you and the Boxing Project a heads up as to when it is in a fit state to be recreated and discuss uploading it again then. p.s. thanks for your input. --] (]) 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Can an admin take a look at ]? It appears to be a "]" request for ]. -- ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion a few thousand views on a YouTube article is not "internet fame". Simply stating there is "disagreement" doesn't answer the question of whether that disagreement is reasonable. One of the YouTube comments states that everyone has been duped and that the whole thing is a hoax, a hoax perpetuated by Vintagekits on Misplaced Pages. A student at UCLA working on a school project who fought half a round against a guy who with 1 win and 13 losses is not notable. The question we have to ask is why Vintagekits would work so hard to post and repost an article for this UCLA student? This is not debate about whether Vintagekits invests incredible amounts energy defending his actions after the fact -- he seems to enjoy exploring the limits of notability and the patience of other editors. The facts are far more important than the fervency of his defense.
{{abot}}


== Sapo.pt ==
::There are scores of legitimate fighters with a single fight who lost. They're also not notable even if they have a YouTube video of that loss. To defend his actions Vintagekits references ], an MMA fighter who has fought for EliteXC and appeared on CBS. Kimbo Slice now fights for the UFC. But let's assume Vintagekits had a basis for his unfair comparison, which is YouTube.
*{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}}
Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proxy question ==
::Kimbo Slice has millions of views of actual fights prior to his MMA career. Tbe UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff has 20,000 views of a media experiment for class with a lot of negative comments. That's just a blatant attempt at failed self promotion which is continued here on Wikpedia - Vintagekits even promotes this activity by creating "see also" links on the Kimbo Slice page. There are plenty of other fighters with losing records who Vintagekits is not constantly creating article for in the state of Arkansas. Why Charlie Zelenoff? The comparison itself is flawed since Kimbo Slice was not attempting to create a spoof and participated in street fights for money -- not in a boxing ring for half a round as a hoax.


I recently enabled the and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., {{redacted}}). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? ] ] 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Vintagekits tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an idiot, but his actions speak otherwise. A person you think is an idiot is not the person you faithfully defend and create articles to promote and link to on legitimate fighters pages. The only reasonable action is to ban Vintagekits and any other editor names he may be using from recreating the Charlie Zelenoff page and whatever other actions are deemed necessary given his past history on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise we end up condoning spurious articles and countless hours debating with Vintagekits about their notability. ] (]) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? ] ] 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. ] (]/]) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::OK thank you! ] ] 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{re|EvergreenFir}} Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last ''x'' days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software ''y''", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of {{slink|foundation:Legal:Wikimedia_IP_Information_Tool_Policy#Use_and_disclosure_of_IP_information}} is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. {{small|I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally.}} ] &#124; ] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. ] (]) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Over on ] we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO
:::::::::Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated ] ] 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that ''IP Info says'' an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated ] ] 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Undeletion + XML export request ==
:::You seem to be taking this matter WAAAAY to seriously and are throwing accusations around like confetti. Have you ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that VK is in ANYWAY related to Charlie Zelenhoff? Have you got ANY evidence that I am an alias / shill for VK? Have you got ANY evidence that either myself or VK has acted in anyway that is not entirely reasonable with regards to this matter? Have you got ANY proof that the fight was indeed a spoof as you so fervently claim? "A few thousand" hits is a bit of an understatement dont you think when a single thread at East Side Boxing about him has has upwards of a third of a million views and 55000 or more posts. That alone puts him head and shoulders above other 1 fight novices in terms of noteriety. Now dont get me wrong I am a not stupid and can clearly see that Zelenhoff's career may well be a staged stunt but that does not make his pro fight any less real nor his noteriety for ineptitude and the less. Frankly you appear to acting in bad faith on this matter and seem to have a personal grudge with VK. You have made your mind up its a spoof and wont listen to anything else and want to have bans thrown around for no oither reason that someone dares to disagree with you. Can we be clear here... why should anyone get a ban from anything over this issue? And what are you actually here to complain about? --] (]) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of ], use ], and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think it's extremely safe to say that Vintagekits is neither Charlie Zelenoff not a student at UCLA, if that's what's being alleged here. I don't think there's any outing involved (given that a quick skim over his history will show it) to say that VK is from ] (and has uploaded numerous self-taken photos of the Sligo area). VK can be a pain in some areas, but in almost three years I've never – as in, ''never'' – known him to be wrong about anything related to boxing.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
: I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. ] ] 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Done}}; ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19 ==
:::::In the few days I've had to deal with him he's been wrong multiple times: 3 times with regard to the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. He's been unable to explain his zeal for reposting an article on a fighter who went half a round as a spoof. Worse, he tells us that he's looking forward to it being REPOSTED -- only days after it was deleted for the third time. In the next breathe he tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an "idiot". It doesn't add up.


:::::I believe the only reasonable response is to ban him from the article. ] (]) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC) {{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }}
Perhaps someone could take a look at ]? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- ] (]) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please explain exactly these 3 things I said that was "wrong". 1. I havent "reposted" the article. I may to in the future when the article is in a stronger position. I posted the article - once! 2. My "zeal" - I believe he is notable at the moment per ] but I will wait until he actually fights again and she if the bring more sources to the article and discuss it prior to I or others colleagues posting the article. You dont seem to be able to discuss the issue in a logical manner so I probably wont be replying again. In the mean time enjoy ] - hopefully you can add to it and make it better. regards--] (]) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You should keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is an ongoing process and that new facts or evidence can of course justify the recreation of a previously deleted article. By the way, I don't think that one must have a positive opinion of an article's subject to consider it notable - otherwise Misplaced Pages would surely have no articles about murderers, war criminals or dictators. Futhermore if the time someone has spent on an article would be suitable to make assumptions, then you would put up with speculations, too. Overlooking User:Vintagekits actions, I can't see anything he has done wrong, therefore I reckon this discussion redundant. <div style="color:darkgreen;"> ~~ ] <sub> ] </sub> ~~ 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC) </div>
::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] closures ==
::::If Vintagekits hadn't reposted the article multiple times and communicated his desire to do it yet again only days after it being deleted for the third time we could have given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe posting and reposting and then stating this will continue should be rewarded. At a minimum, a ban from the Zelenoff spoof article should be enforced. If you think you're dealing with someone who is reasonable, this is what he had to say to another editor named BastunnutsaB regarding some of his other edits:


{{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}}
::::"A request for Arbcom enforcement concerning you has been made here. BastunnutsaB 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


2 sections ] and ](MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions.
You are an absolute dick! Talk about trying to cause hassle and drama where there isnt any.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"


::::Is this the voice of a reasonable editor? ] (]) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. ] (]/]) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Not the words I would have chosen but the sentiment is pretty representative of a reasonable editor on the receiving end of your accusations and ramblings on this matter. You are continuing to make a drama where none exists. You have continued to throw around baseless accusations and you continue to push an OR POV that the fight was a spoof. I've asked if you have evidence to back up your claims and accusations. Where is it?? --] (]) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::And while you are at it please let us know why VK being involved in an entirely seperate Arbcom discussion has any bearing on this matter. --] (]) 03:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ::Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? ] (]) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. ] (]/]) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I decline your request to withdraw. ] makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. ] (]) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. ] (]/]) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. ] (]) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:So much for cooperation... <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. ] (]/]) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::May be I should have more specifically mentioned ] (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. ] (]/]) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. ] (]) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. ] (]) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of ] . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said ] to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". ] (]/]) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. ] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{outdent|1}} Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. ] (]/]) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. ] (]) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? ] (]) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @] can you explain? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. ] (]) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per ]. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . ''Many editors'' have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. ''In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system,'' but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. ]&thinsp;] 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. ] (]) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building.
::::::::*Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468.
::::::::*Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468
::::::::*Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629
::::::::*Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022
::::::::] (]) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::To me, characterizing as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;] 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. ] (]) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. ] (]) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::So you're aware, per {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Retiring#Pending_sanctions}}, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have ''claimed to have retired previously'', please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with ], especially as it related to ]. ]&thinsp;] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. ] (]) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Consensus disagrees: ] ] (]) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with ''you'', not the culture. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. ] (]) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Note that I said "experienced", not "older". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to ] to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. ] (]) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? ] (]) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They tried that stunt ]. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a <s>second</s> <s>third </s> n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? ]&thinsp;] 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes. ] (]) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
:We can enforce guidelines about civility, ], but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.
::My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.
::Timeline of how this ended up here:
::*Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
::*Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
::*Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
::*Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.
::I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". ]
::An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.
::I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605
::I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 ] ]
::I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. ] (]) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard <u>not</u> to be {{tq|uncivil}}.
:::<small>But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person.</small> <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. ] (]) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? ==
::::::They're not baseless accusations - they're fact. Did you watch the single Zelenoff fight on YouTube? He went half a round before his corner waved off the fight against an opponent who had 1 win and 13 losses. Have you read the comments? It was a hoax. It's time for you and the other editor named Vintagekits to stop promoting Charlie Zelenoff and wasting our time. The joke, of course, is on us since we continue to give you and the other editor named Vintagekits our undivided attention. If the UCLA student posing as Zelenoff cannot become an "internet sensation" maybe he can become notorious on Misplaced Pages for frustrating editors. You're the same editor who was has repeatedly supported Vintagekits in his efforts to promote Zelenoff stating it's "definitely a keep".


For example, ]. In theory I think this could be deleted via ] for violating ]. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?
::::::Vintagekits has little respect for other editors as evidenced by his harsh words for BastunnatsaB. And his edits reflect that of a editor that is not mindful of other editors time. I'm the third editor forced to take this issue up and absent a ban on Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this article we'll be back here again. And I expect we'll see fervent defenses by Vintagekits with consensus from LiamE, as has been the case in the past.


Hmm, actually this is an article about a ] member, not a ] member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::We will eventually see another "see also" link on Kimbo Slice to Charlie Zelenoff. Vintagekits will no doubt play other Misplaced Pages editors for fools prefacing his comments with things "sadly, he is for real". It's a spoof and we need not waste any other editors time playing nanny for Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this topic. Again, I believe at a bare minimum a ban is appropriate given his unwillingness to stop reposting the article and creating "see also" links on legitimate fighter pages such as ]. He's also gone through the trouble of listing Charlie Zelenoff as a notable person from California and Los Angeles -- quite a bit of energy for someone that he claims he holds in low regard? ] (]) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
* No, it doesn't. If it ''was'' (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles ''should'' be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. ] 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It might fall under ]. ] (]/]) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per ] ¶&nbsp;A2, {{tqq|Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::As long as the article is acceptable, this is what ] is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Given that they were specifically when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of ] at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. ] ] 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::In ''that'' case, it should probably be nuked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ] (]) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. ] (]) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::So let me get this straight. Your assertion that the fight was a spoof despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary is a comment on a youtube video? And because some editors dont agree with your stance bans should be handed out to editors that have acted reasonably in this matter? VK's behaviour in other matters has no bearing here. I've asked for you evidence to back up your claim and accusations. So far all I can is see a comment abut a youtube video. Seems to me like you reaching a bit. Again I ask you where is your evidence I am an alias or shill for VK? If you want to drag my name through the mud man up and back up yoru accusation with something. Where is you evidence that the fight was a spoof? Where is your evidence taht VK has repeatedly reposted the page? Where is your evidence that VK or myself intend to submit the page again without more information being available? In fact where is the evidence for ANY of your claims taht have any bearing on this matter?? --] (]) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


== Archive bots ==
So, three days after accusing me of being a sock / shill for VK in what I can only assume is an effort to get me banned from[REDACTED] for simply disagreeing with you in a reasonable manner you still have produced exactly nothing to back up your claim. I want to hear why you made that assertion or I want you to acknowledge you made an error of judgement and retract your accusation against me. Do you seriously think that VK had the foresight to make an alias a year before his main account and despite being involved in several heated discussions only decides to use that alias to back himself up on the matter of a dreadful boxer? A matter that had been resolved without any drama whatsoever as far as I can see until you started throwing baseless accusations around.
{{atop
| result = This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. ] (]/]) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, despite your repeated claims, the fight certainly was not a spoof and the article was deleted not on the basis of it being a spoof but not meeting notability standards. I disagree with that, but I accept that and I have gone about noting my disagreement in a reasonable manner. It is standard wiki practice for these matters to be revisited if and when more evidence of notability arises. It is not for you to crystal ball and say it can't happen and therefore those looking for more evidence of notability should be banned from the article. This, however, is a very minor point in comparison to the accusation of sockpuppetry / shilling made against me which could potentially lead to me being banned for[REDACTED] entirely if it had any substance or an admin made an error on the matter. Time to put up or shut up. Where is the evidence I am an alias for an account created a year after my own, edited from different locations, with very divergent editing histories? If you have none be a man about it and retract your accusation.
:{{u|TonyTheTiger}}. Maybe you are thinking of ]? –] <small>(])</small> 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. ==
If you want to make accusations against editors such as myself I think perhaps you should keep your own house in order. I notice some of your recent edits could be construed as canvassing, you have previously been blocked for incivility and have used your own blog as a cite to push your own POV in articles. --] (]) 12:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per ] (and, indeed, ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
As observed , Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated.<span id="Masem:1737504211892:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against.<span id="Masem:1737506377400:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. ] (]) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations}} Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. ] (]/]) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ] for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. ] ] 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Legal threat ==
::The problem is not that it's non-notable -- it's his stated desire to see it reposted. Charlie Zelenoff was a hoax. Do you vehemently defend every fighter who has gone half a round and lost against a fighter with a record of 1 win and 13 losses? Is that your standard for notability?
{{atop
| result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on ]. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. ] (]) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::If he had not gone through the trouble of linking and re-linking to a famous MMA fighter ] perhaps nobody would have noticed the failed media experiment and been the wiser.
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor ==
::The fact that you both act in unanimity on spurious articles makes one wonder. Why is LiamE so eager to defend an article that has been deleted three times? I know you claim you're not VintageKits, but a quick review of the records will determine it one way or the other. If you're not the same editor, then you need to review the guidelines and stop assisting VintageKits in his efforts to waste other editors time.
{{atop

| result = ]. Level 2 warning issued. ] (]/]) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Perhaps the UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff can bring this hoax to a conclusion? I wonder if he gets extra credit for wasting editors time into the summer session? And then VintageKits can go back to editing articles in a non-disruptive manner. A much easier solution is to simply ban VintageKits and whatever other editor name he may be using. Otherwise we'll be reading reams of point, counter point by VintageKits and LiamE, which has become a familiar patten. ] (]) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
}}
::: Alright, this is ridiculous, Lordvolton. First of all, Vintagekits is not a UCLA student. I lives and edits many thousands of miles from there. Secondly, he is not editing from multiple accounts. Why? Because that could easily be shown by a check-user and, if he would found to be sockpuppeteering again, he would be perma-banned. Do you really think he would risk that for this stupid little article? Finally, although he didn't exactly state it in the nicest way, what he said is correct. There is every likelihood that this person will eventually become notable enough for an article. This is done, let it go please. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:::You really are incredible. "I know you claim you're not VintageKits, but a quick review of the records will determine it one way or the other." How about having a quick look yourself before posting baseless and very serious accusations? I will ask you one last time before I take this matter further. Post your evidence that I am an alias of Vinatgekits or retract your accusation. Your behaviour towrds me to my mind has now crossed the line from an honest mistake to a personal attack. To repeatedly assert that I am an alias is a serious matter on[REDACTED] with serious consequences and should not be done lightly.

:::Perhaps you don't realise that Kimbo Slice fame started off as internet chatter. Now whereas Slice has some ability Zelenhoff appears to have none and has a significant ammount of notability because of that in boxing circles. Has it not occurred to you that both I and Vintagekits might know a little more about the subject matter than you? Has it not occurred to you that we might just happen to agree on this subject because of our knowledge of the matter at hand?

:::Your repeated assertions that he is a hoax is pure ] and is nearly as baseless as your accusations against myself of sockpuppetry. Where is your cite to say he is a hoax? A comment on youtube video? Ah come off it. If you want I can link a dozen youtube comments saying Joe Calzaghe is a fraud. Shall we assume he is a hoax based on that?

:::I noted my disagreement to the original ruling based on the level of discussion about him in boxing circles. The two most popular threads about zelenoff at one major boxing site have had 420,000 plus views and about 65,000 posts. In comparison the 2 most popular threads about boxers other than zelenoff have had half the views and a fraction of the posts. But if you knew a little more about the subject, you'd already know that.

:::As for timewasting, please dont make me laugh. You seem to be the one causing all the fuss over this matter. Your assertion that VK should be banned from the article because he would like to see it reposted is beyond banal. IT IS STANDARD WIKI PRACTICE TO REVISIT SUCH ARTICLES AS AND WHEN MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

:::Now, retract your accusation of sockpuppetry against me please or I will have to take the matter forward. Feel free to take the time to investigate my edit history, something you should have taken the time to do before making the accusation. --] (]) 23:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Lest there be any doubt, here is a link to the fight. Charlie Zelenoff (aka UCLA acting student) with a professional record of NO WINS and NO LOSSES versus Andrew Hartley with a professional record of 1 win and 13 losses at the time of the fight – Mr. Hartley has lost two more times since this fight.

The UCLA student lasts for half a round before you see his corner wave off the fight. He ends up with a record of 0 wins and 1 loss. Clearly this is not a notable fighter but if he were then anyone who gets into a shoving match on YouTube could have a Misplaced Pages page dedicated to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxtDLPKnDA

Here is my favorite comment found on page 2:

“Just to let you guys know, you have been scammed for the last year. charlie zelenoff was a student at UCLA doing comedy for a class he was taking. i would say he was pretty successful after the first 3 months with the height of his popularity. now he does it to make a name for himself and to make money on the side. his goal is satire and to become an internet legend. charlie planned to quit before the fight started. his real name aint even charlie zelenoff. folks he is acting.”-uzkoglazieyCharlieZ

The hoax worked fantastically! We’ve got two editors who are “punch drunk” writing articles about it. The truth came out two months ago and they won’t let it go.

My hope is it’s actually the UCLA student trying to plug himself in a failed attempted to become an “internet legend”, otherwise we have one (or possibly two) editors with no regard for Misplaced Pages guidelines. I find it hard to imagine someone plugging the UCLA student posing as Zelenoff for no reason, but stranger things have happened.

On a random aside, how do you become an internet legend by losing to a guy with 1 win and 13 losses?

The “see also” links on the Kimbo Slice page, who is a legitimate internet legend and MMA fighter, led me to believe there may be some nefarious activity. Perhaps I over estimate the research skills of Vintagekits who others have said is well versed in boxing – I’m taking them at their word.

And that is why we must ban Vintagekits from this article and determine if LiamE is the same editor. It’s time for this disruptive media experiment to finally end with the swift hand of Misplaced Pages justice. ] (]) 04:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:It's time for ''this'' disruptive media experiment to end. This thread is achieving nothing. Vintagekits isn't about to be banned from any boxing-related article (barring a serious meltdown). There doesn't seem to be any ongoing disruption that needs admin attention. Editors are encouraged to work on draft articles in user space. If, after a reasonable period, you feel that an article page in user space is no longer being worked on, then nominate it at ]. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::Whether VintageKits should be banned from legitimate boxing articles is a separate issue, however, with regard to this hoax article I believe the only reasonable course of action is to ban VintageKits and whatever other editorial names he may be using. Otherwise we'll be forced to repeatedly watch Charlie Zelenoff's opponent with 1 win and 13 losses (now 15 losses) have a CHAMPIONSHIP BELT placed around his waist after defeating an aspiring comedian in a spoof fight. Was that the Arkansas Middle School Championship?

::Clearly, this doesn't reflect well on VintageKits or LiamE's research. The article has been deleted three times so they've had several opportunities to correct their mistakes, instead they've repeatedly reposted the article and vigorously defended it and linked it to other legitimate fighters. This results in other editors eventually being introduced to VintageKits and by default LiamE.

::A lot of professors question the reliability of Misplaced Pages and its this process that protects the integrity of the articles.

::If VintageKits and others are allowed to recklessly post articles, even after they've been given every opportunity to behave in a manner that is respectful of others, then we've not only failed in our duties but we've proven those skeptics of Misplaced Pages to be correct. This isn't just about VintageKits, it's about the standards set down by Misplaced Pages and whether we have the courage to stop abuse. If this were the first time VintageKits had posted the article and there was reasonable disagreement then these harsh measures may not be required, but VintageKits has proven time and again that simply asking him nicely to stop doesn't work.

::The repeated offenses merit a stronger response. At a bare minimum he should be banned from this hoax article. Whether his recent actions on other articles are deserving of more extreme measures is something I will leave up to others as I haven't bothered to review his edits.

::Although Misplaced Pages may have its critics when it comes to the reliability and notability of articles, I am confident justice will prevail. Thank you. ] (]) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== New noticeboard suggestion: ] ==

{{Resolved}} We all know how this would go: MFD, drama fest, ends up getting ''de facto'' redirected to my user talk. Which pretty much serves the same function anyway. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

{{collapsetop}}
Thoughts? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*I think you would get a ton of noobs complaining that an administrator deleted their article, or blocked them for vandalizing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;] : ] </span></small> 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*WP/ANI will have a broader cross-section of people watching it, so responses will be more balanced -- this one will probably have either people looking to get admins in trouble, or admins looking to defend each other against accusations. I'd have to say "no" on this (especially considering the past couple of weeks I've had). --] (]) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*Only it keeps it off of this page. Frankly I'm pissed off <sup>]</sup> with the number of editors who have no bloody clue <sup>]</sup> and shout admin abuse at every opportunity. I'm also pissed off with the admins who seem to think they are above anyone, and can use their tools and ask questions later <sup>]</sup>. I'd support an admin abuse page but '''only''' if it refers directly to use of admin only tools. All other complaints about the ] stay at the main ANI page (or better yet somewhere else but I'm not that innocent as to think that will happen) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*I am also afraid that it would only be an invitation for whining. It seems to me that the vast majority of "reports of administrator abuse" that I see here (and elsewhere) is completely unfounded and downright silly. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*I think that would be largely redundant to ANI, but it can't hurt to give it a try. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*Against. Practically every accusation of "administrative abuse" I see is trolls abusing admins, and those that aren't usually end up requiring ArbComm. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*Terrible idea. Keep the whining centralized here. The last thing this type of whining needs is decentralization. The more eyes, the better.] (]) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
* ^^^ ] &#124; ] 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*I generally agree with I think Pedro suggested. There's a world of difference between abuse ''from'' an editor who happens to be an administrator and an abuse of the administrative tools. I guess some will object on the basis that administrators ought to be the paragons of all the virtues, and never snap at another editor, but they're (mostly) human, like the rest of us. The important stuff is the abuse of the tools, and that tends to get lost in what I see as the far less important stuff often brought up here. --] ] 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
**That's what I said, just you said it better :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*I thought the places to discuss Admin behavior/actions/deportment/sanity/insanity was . . . here and ]. I see no need for another drama board. Use of the tools is appealable on a number of boards besides this one. Leave it here. If the complaint is baseless or founded in ignorance, consensus to that affect should quickly emerge. If an admin or any other editor has erred, then that will become appearent here as well.]] 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
**(I suppose I've been lucky. I've had very little abuse hurled my way for being an admin-- a volunteer, unpaid, time consuming and draining yet rewarding job. What some other admins have had to put up with would try the patience of a saint.) ]] 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
*We don't need a dedicated place to abuse admins.--] <sup>(])</sup> 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
**Are you sure? If you change your mind, I propose we place it at ]. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 02:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*Keep it ] and I think it's a great idea. Otherwise, I agree with Pedro. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*Some people here may be interested in ]. &#9786; ] (]) 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*Mmm... Perhaps not than. But I think we need to look at how we deal with complaints of administrative abuse. ANI doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to raising concerns, it's like throwing shit into a ceiling fan: no real end result except that everyone has to take a shower afterward. Anyways, I just think that the growing discord between editors who feel admins are untouchable and admins who feel like they can't try and solve problems without getting accused of abuse is one that needs to be mended. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – encouraging cesspits of drama is not constructive. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
* The title is wrong. It's fine to have a place to appeal administrators' actions. These are not incidents, and I'd agree to separate the stream into two different boards. Perhaps ]. It is almost always best to focus on actions rather than people. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*:Sure, that's a less loaded title. I'd support that. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*Sounds like a new ] limited to sysops. ] (]) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*Bali ultimate made a good point. It shouldn't be decentralized. It would create more drama, and I tihnk things would get out of control, especially with less eyes on it. '''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>''' 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*A place to deal with incorrect admin behaviour that sadly happens all too often is not a bad idea in itself. But to keep it the form of a noticeboard is not solving the problem, just moving it away from here. Instead, we would probably need some kind of system in place where a group of neutral editors review concerns brought up there and then issue rulings, something like a small ArbCom for every day use that just serves to issue rulings like "admin X is found to have violated Policy Y section Z when deleting page A" to see where problems really exist. Also, such a system could allow us here to direct all those people screaming "admin abuse!" to it where the complaints that merit review can be separated from those that are just whiny cries for attention where an admin just did his job, thus allowing ANI to close all such threads immediately and all those meriting review can be reviewed without needless drama. But alas, I fear I'm digressing into utopia here... Regards ''']]''' 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*:Yes, something like that would help as well but I doubt it would ever get off the ground. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS - - with one restriction all administrators are banned from the page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I'm afraid it will end up in a boy who called wolf syndrome. If it gets filled with non-valid complaints most people will ignore it, and then if there's a valid complaint no one will see it.--] (]) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
* It would likely only further the trend lately of shrilly claiming wanton admin abuse/involvement/arrogance only as a means of wikilawyering towards breaking policy. ] (]) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
* #REDIRECT ]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*My first thought on reading this title was "Oh great, finally a noticeboard for people who want to be insulted by admins." On reflection, there are other interpretations of "admin abuse" and now I'm not even sure who that joke is directed at. I don't think the solution is that kind of "board"; I think what's needed is a group of people who're trusted to fairly review admin conduct. Trusted by editors in good standing, that is. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*There was an attempt at a community driven board, to be found at ], earlier this year. While it appears that the momentum has not been maintained, I don't see much point in duplicating what appears to be a sound basis for hearing cases and determining if there are grounds for the complaint. What happens after the finding was not part of the remit, so any Admin Noticeboard variant could be for the consideration of what to do with admins found to have abused their flags. In any case, I think Tony1 and his page should be included in any further discussion around this point. ] (]) 20:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

*'''Statement by Tony1.''' Thanks to LessHeard vanU for alerting me to this section (and congrats on a successful RfA). We need to face up to the fact that there is significant discontent in the community about (i) occasional admin breaches of admin policy, and (ii) the current processes for dealing with them (mainly ANI, ArbCom). These processes are dominated by admins (and ANI is host to a fair few non-admins who would like to be admins and who wisely want to expose themselves to situations they might find themselves in as such). This leads to the perception of bias and "sticking up for colleagues", although it is hard to make a definite allegation of the extent of this phenomenon, and I won't try: the perception is enough to attract our concern. ArbCom is a big deal, is horribly logjammed, and rightly tries to head off all but the most egregious cases involving individual admins. ArbCom is ''not'' the way to resolve most instances of admin policy compliance.<p>These are the reasons for the drafting of the ] process, which still faces four challenges: how to handle multiple complainant/admin parties; the mode of electing coordinators (not hard); how to locate skilled candidates for coordinatorship (maybe hard); and how to gain community acceptance and forge a productive relationship with ANI and ArbCom. Another issue, which may well be dealt with after AdminReview is up and running as a "good-faith" process without teeth, is whether to ''give'' it teeth.<p><u>Responses to individual comments above.</u>Pedro, above, says: "Frankly I'm pissed off with the number of editors who have no bloody clue and shout admin abuse at every opportunity. I'm also pissed off with the admins who seem to think they are above anyone, and can use their tools and ask questions later WP:NPA. I'd support an admin abuse page but only if it refers directly to use of admin only tools." AdminReview is designed to balance the needs and obligations of all parties, without favour or COI. It is strictly constrained to the matter of compliance with admin policies, which are codified on the page. Shereth says: "I am also afraid that would only be an invitation for whining." AdminReview is designed to head off trivial/vexatious complainants and whiners by politely telling them to sod off (with brief reasons) at an early point. TreasuryTag says "encouraging cesspits of drama is not constructive". Taking the drama off project space and dealing with it in a respected process seems like a good idea. Xeno's original idea suggests that ANI currently does not provide a solution, but I do not believe that a dedicated page on ANI for resolving admin compliance disputes has any hope of gaining the confidence of the non-admin community. Lenticel says "We don't need a dedicated place to abuse admins". AdminReview is to improve relations between admins and non-admins in the project by providing a process that both sides generally trust. Gwen says: "... shrilly claiming wanton admin abuse/involvement/arrogance only as a means of wikilawyering towards breaking policy." I appreciate how annoying shrillness must be, and we don't want it. AdminReview parties are warned that coordinators will remove incivility from statements by parties, who will soon learn to take the emotion out of it if they don't initially understand. On "wikilawyering", wherever powerful remedies (blocking, deletions) can be used to enforce policy, and certain people are entrusted with applying such remedies, there need to be open, clear rules. Both sides can use the written rules to their benefit, and can't be stopped. If there is something wrong with the rules, they should be fixed.<p><u>Bureacracy.</u>A word about criticisms of AdminReview's "bureacratic", "bloated" appearance: well-designed rules are essential for any fair and efficient process. ArbCom is starting to realise this WRT the lack of time deadlines and evidentiary limits of its own hearings, which are gobsmackingly inefficient and seem to encourage bloated warfare among the parties rather than healing it. While AdminReview may ''look'' long and complex, by contrast the actual process is designed to be fair, prompt, and reasonably simple for the parties. There is good bureaucracy and bad bureaucracy: if anyone has suggestions on trimming or otherwise improving the page, I'll be pleased to hear them.<p>The development of AdminReview has been held up for a while, but I would be pleased to move it forward over the next few months. And no, I don't want to be lord of the manor, or to host it live on my user space. I don't want institutional power. ] ] 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

== Vandalism-only account misusing my username ==

This new user has copied my username with only one non-capital letter difference (small "r")

* http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Bullrangifer

and has vandalized by userpage and some of my subpages. Please block and perform a CU as this is likely a banned user taking revenge. Is there a "vandalism-only" template to use on his user and talk pages? -- ] (]) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:Blocked by {{user|Gwen Gale}} (and heartily endorsed). Can't see a CU will help though, to be honest. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::If you can name the banned user to give the CUs something for comparison, it might be worth a look, for other accounts as well. Without a name its much tougher to find socks. ] 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::: Thanks for taking care of the socks. The CU was indeed fruitful! -- ] (]) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

== RFC bot deleting RfC tags prematurely ==

The user who runs the ] ] that the bot has a flaw that sometimes deletes tags prematurely, but continues to run the flawed bot. I request it be blocked until the flaw is corrected. --] (]) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
: It is a flaw that is only triggered when there is no timestamp in the first paragraph of the description. You will have to put the timestamp in the first paragraph until I can release a working fix. &mdash;] (]) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:: Lo and behold, problem solved. &mdash;] (]) 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

== Block evading sock ==

{{Resolved|1=LatinoAussie was confirmed by checkuser to be a sock of Cazique. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{Userlinks|TeePee-20.7}}
*{{Userlinks|LatinoAussie}}

LatinoAussie appears to be indef-blocked TeePee-20.7: same incivility, same concentration on Australians with Latin American heritage (see ] throughout). <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 05:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:An ] case would be the way to go here, but in order to do that you would need to be more specific. Could you provide us with a few ]? Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::Not really, it's more of a "look and feel" thing. I think if you look at the ] page and compare the posts by TP at the beginning to the posts by LA from the middle down, you get the smell of it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Didn't realize that TP was a . <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 05:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)Just want to note here that LatinoAussie has gone to ], an admin, looking for a preventative block against me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 07:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:I've filed a sockpuppet investigation request at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Cazique. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::The results:

:::*{{likely}} the following are Cazique:
:::#{{checkuser|TPTanque}}
:::#{{checkuser|LatinoAussie}}
:::#{{checkuser|VerceticarI}}
:::#{{checkuser|TruthTold}}
:::#{{checkuser|CartelCacique}}

::These accounts have apparently all been blocked and tagged. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

== William S. Saturn ==

A year ago, while I was away, my previous account, ] was blocked for sockpuppetry. The user talk page was protected after another member of my household used the account in an attempt to get me unblocked out of guilt for her actions as a sockpuppet. She was
by ]. After I returned from my trip, I found that my account had been blocked and the talk page protected. I had my sister log in as "Uga Man," (her main account) and I gave an explanation of what had occurred. This explanation can still be viewed at ]. Administrators did not believe the explanation and declined to unblock the account. So I decided to start over and took Sam Korn's advise. That is when I created this account. If one looks at the edits of ] and compares them to my edits under Southern Texas and William S. Saturn, they will see that the accounts belong to two different people. This month, I decided to return as an active editor, and I explained the situation to the admin ]. He advised me to post the situation here. My request is for the Southern Texas account to have the sockpuppet label removed and for it to be redirected to my page. If possible, I would like for the edits of Southern Texas to be merged to this account. Thank you. --] (]) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:Southern Texas (now William S. Saturn) and I interacted with one another on pages including ], ], and ]. That is why I was shocked to see that he had been blocked for sockpuppetry. He recently came to me as William S. Saturn seeking a copyedit on ], revealing that he was Southern Texas and explaining the situation to me with his request. I suggested taking it to WP:AN to gather other opinions. He was relunctant at first, fearing that admins would misundestand his quandry and promptly block his new account. Thus here I am, informing all parties that I have had a history with Southern Texas/William Saturn and believe him to be telling the truth. The edits of Uga Man (his sister) and Southern Texas are starkly different and does give some credence to Saturn's claim that the two truly are different people; Uga Man edited a wide range of articles while Southern Texas' edits were usually contrained to presidential campaigns and political figures. I am unaware, however, if merging the edits of the two accounts and redirecting the old Southern Texas information and user space to the new William S. Saturn page is even possible -- I'm not an extremely experienced admin. ] (]) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

*Whatever the background on the claims of the actual human using the cited accounts, there is a constellation of sockpuppet accounts that were banned from use, and the history of the banning should not be obfuscated, nor should the fact of their banning be made confusing or obscure by merger of the account's history into other accounts. As such I oppose the request of ], whose accounts in the past, apparently more than a few times have broken past promises on the topic of intention to behave according to Misplaced Pages standards. This history should not be hidden. The constellation of sockpuppet accounts participated in editing, among other things, high profile political biographies and political article templates during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign. I urge reviewing administrators to look at the the background made visible in this posting on the Administrators noticeboard:

::Incident Archive: Reported at 19:24, May 13, 2008 -- Action by admin: ]
::-- ] (]) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
----
:::Given the length of time elapsed, I have no problem in having the user page for the old user redirect to the new user page, but I oppose merging histories or anything like that, for the reasons that ] has articulated above. ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
*'''Technical note''': From ], "It is not possible for bureaucrats to merge two accounts".--] (]) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
*I also worked with Southern Texas on political articles at the time. The user had a rocky beginning with some edit warring, then stabilized to become a better and useful editor who did a lot of positive work in the less visible parts of the 2008 presidential candidates set. I was surprised to see the sockpuppet-running come out, but after looking over talk pages and based on my WP instinct, I believed then, and still do, that Southern Texas really was engaged in some good hand/bad hand activity. I have no quarrel with the new William S. Saturn account, but I would oppose the obscuring or merging of the Southern Texas account or history. ] (]) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
**Follow-up: William S. Saturn is beyond saying it's my 'instinct'. I didn't do then, and don't want to do now, the detailed histories analysis and time-period studies and diff-level work and IP address comparisons and motivational understanding and whatnot that goes into a sockpuppet investigation. (I've done enough of that to flush out some socks on other sets of articles.) I don't see the "different posting style" fact as necessarily clearing; any smart sockpuppeteer will adopt a different voice for the socks (although surprisingly, many don't). It's certainly true that if someone ''does'' masquerade as you on WP and act badly and you're innocent, then you're really screwed here and no one is likely to believe you. But at the time my sockdar didn't buy Southern Texas' story. If I'm wrong, then perhaps it's unfair that I'm saying this now. If an admin wants to strike my comments off, she can, but a topic like this at AN invites people to respond and so I did. ] (]) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|1=Nothing really wrong here. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>]}}

:This is not yet resolved. It seems like ''I Seek To Help &amp; Repair'' is being forced into an unnecessary name change. ] (]) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::No, I've been considering name change for a while. I especially don't like the ampersand anymore. Thanks anyway ]
----
Is this chap's userpage appropriate? It doesn't exactly make communication between users easier... ] (]) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:His userpage is fine. His 'feedback' system's cumbersone, but nothing requires other users to jump through his hoops. The 'new section' button's still there, so it can be used instead of his charts and graphs based triplicate TPS report style. ] (]) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:He should probably be told about the ] per the statement at the top of the userpage, other than that, I don't see a problem. It's over-the-top-, yes, but you don't have to look at the userpage. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
*Dear God, my eyes. You should warn people before doing that. Some of us have hangovers. //] ] 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)</small>
**Hmm. His sig signs his username as 'Sought', which is actually the name of ]. My memory is hazy on this, but I was under the impression that one must sign with a username that is at least somewhat related to the account name, and definitely not with the username of somebody else. Am I wrong on this? //] ] 17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)</small>
***I think someone suggested to him in his recent RFA that he change his name anyway, I would echo that; especially given the ampersand which can cause issues with templates and the like. Perhaps he would like to ] "Sought". –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
***(edit conflict) See ]: "''While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents.''" There are established users who use a signature totally different from their username (like ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] or the numerous people who sign with their real name which is not their username). I don't think it's a problem at all really. ] (]) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
*I will change my signature (I was planning on a new signature anyway), but I currently have no desire to change my user name, also I agree with Xeno, you don't have to look at my user page, also, I keep my talk page at soft colors so it does not visually offend anyone, my talk page is necessary to all, my user page is necessary to some. My feedback system: Are you able to leave me feedback? Yes, then isn't that enough? Aren't there other Wikipedians that have far worse, more offensive user pages +? I am aware of the ], I also am aware of the ampersand, so if my user name is changed I would like it to be something I like that doesn't contain an ampersand, and I would rather not have a user page that everyone contributes to. If you don't like my user page, then you don't have to stay on it, also, I made the main color yellow, when clearly the harshest colors are blue and red. Thank You, Please contact me if you have anymore concerns ]<small>]</small>] 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
**Feel free to ] and maybe edit it for the better, remember the character count ]<small>]</small>] 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
***There you go, it's changed ] |<small> ]</small>] 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Fairly incomprehensible. Kind of reads like ]. Have you thought of a simple "I Seek" - short, memorable, reference to the actual name. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

*Please see ] Thank You, ] |<small> ]</small>] 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
*I see nothing wrong with ''ISTHnR'' as a signature. If the & is a big deal, may I suggest ''I Seek To Help n Repair!'' or ''I Seek To Help And Repair!'' ? ] (]) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== 120+ edits within the last day ==

{{resolved}}
I have a question, which is unclear. I have been wondering if there's actually a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time.

One editor, {{User|SpectrumDT}} has made . These edits occurred within less than five hours of editing. According to the edit summaries, all of these edits are category edits, although that's not really important though.

Here's a question. Is there a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time? If there is a more appropriate forum, please feel free to take this somewhere else. I am pointing out who raised the question in case it is AN worthy. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:I have not notified the editor of this thread. Can somebody drop a note on the editors talk page? Thank you. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::heh... well you probably should have, myth! - I've done so, but must let you know that your request for someone else to drop in a note could come across as a little bit rude, although probably well intentioned :-) - I think the correct response to this thread is 'lurk moar' anyways (or is that 'rtfm'?) - your question isn't a great fit for this board (answer - 120 edits in a day is no problem, no technical limit to edits per day, folk who work with bots will prick their ears up if you start to do 120+ per minute) - there's nothing wrong with using talk pages for such questions, so feel free to drop me a line directly (or someone you know, or someone friendly) if you'd like to chat more... cheers, ] (]) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::In future you can use the ], all the best ]<sup>]</sup> 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::On 14 January, I made more than 5600 edits. No one complained, so it's probably okay to make as many as you want, even as a human. ]]] 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Were those "5600 edits" all in one day or was that a milestone? —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thats just a day for J.delanoy. His edit count is in the hundred thousands, I believe. <span style="font-family:sans-serif;color:#888;">~]</span> 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's not unusual to have hundreds of edits in one day's time if you're using AWB or Huggle (even for a brief vandal-hunting session) for instance. ] 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about how many of which are allowed? —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:Huh? How many of which what, hmmm? (edit #156 for this date). <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 02:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::How many edits are allowed to be made in a period of time. For example, is it okay to make more than 100 edits in a minute? Is it okay to make 2500 edits in one day? —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:Well, I just did a batch of 10 edits in less then a minute. I think there is a rate limit but it's higher than 10 edits per minute, so with that math, you could theoretically perform 14,400 edits a day (10*60*24) without rate limiting. <span style="font-family:sans-serif;color:#888;">~]</span> 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

*I've made at least 200 edits per day for about a year now, with the exception of a couple holidays. It's not a problem. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::I used to pile up 100+ edits in the days I got started on vandal fighting. I guess there's no problem with high edit counts within a limited time unless the editing rate is too high for a human :) Anyway I hope there's not going to be a limit, because J.delanoy has already confessed to a rather scary number of edits in a single day, and he can't get away from us now if we decide to go hunting :P ] ] 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I once got 1337 edits in one day. (No, seriously 1337...). I've also gotten over 400 edits in 45 minutes when the vandalism was particularly heavy. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>]</font></font> <font face="Segoe Print"><sup><font color=green>]</font></sup></font> 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Remember young grasshopper. Its not the quantity of your edits but its quality that counts.--] (]) 03:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Good point. A low quantity with a good quality is better than a high quantity with a low quality. But, you should also know that quantity also counts in many aspects. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::If I may advise - we are all, supposedly, here to build an encyclopedia, so one should strive to edit in the mainspace as much as possible. Your contribution count, for instance, show 5,204 edits overall, but only 2,076 to articlespace -- which is 39.89% I'd say that's not a particularly good ratio. You need to work a little more and talk a little less (and start frivolous threads on AN nevermore). Misplaced Pages isn't about having rollback, it's about editing the articles and writing new ones. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 06:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"If your EPD is lower than 50, then you are a failure at Misplaced Pages." (]). '''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>''' 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:My EPD is 56.36 (on average), I'm just barely not a failure! ] |<small> ]</small>] 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::I don't give a darn about "edits per day", but I '''''do''''' care that some people seem to think that Misplaced Pages is some kind of gigantic multi-user role-playing game, or that it exists for the pleasure of these ruminations. It does no harm, on occasion, to remind folks of why we're here, and what we're supposed to be doing. It's bad enough that admins, are forced to spend more time outside of articlespace than they should, but an ordinary editor who isn't '''''actively contributing''''' to the encyclopedia and spends most of their time on talk pages, noticeboards and other frippery ought to be reminded: '''''that's not what we're about'''''. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Legal threat in email ==

What do I do with a legal threat sent to me via email? -- ] (]) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:Please read ]. --] (]) 12:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::Did. Doesn't mention email. Report it at AN/I? Include the email? Forward to some other address? -- ] (]) 12:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Depending on what the threat is against, I would suggest forwarding it to ArbCom or the Foundation/Mike Godwin - all of them if you are unsure. ] (]) 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Is this legal threat funny? Many are (vanity, cod-legalese, and crap spelling are a potent mix), and if I received one of these I'd be inclined to serve the merriment of all by posting it in full on my user page, complete with every last incriminating detail of the header. Not that I'm recommending this to you or anyone else. -- ] (]) 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::If it was sent from a non-wiki account, there's not much we can do unless you can figure out what that person's wiki user name is. If you can prove who the wiki user is, they and their email capabilities can be blocked. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 13:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's from a user editing WP anonymously: ]. (See also ], ) -- ] (]) 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Don't post his e-mail (even if funny), as this is a copyright concern (private e-mails being subject to copyright just like any letter), but by all means check with ArbCom or Mike if you're worried. I can't fathom what you might be being threatened ''for''. Not allowing them to publish their schedule? In any event, I've dropped him a COI notice, under the circumstances. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::I've blocked the IP for a short time owing to the reported legal threat by email (the IP does seem to straightforwardly identify himself in one of the contribs). ] (]) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I believe that the copyright of an email, like written correspondence, is invested in the recipient - however, my question to JHunterJ is if the threat is to him personally, him in his capacity as a WP editor/admin, or WP generally. ] (]) 16:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe the UK handles things differently than the US? In the US, copyright remains with the author, while physical ownership of the copy is in the rcipient. See, for instance, : "The author of letters is entitled to a copyright in the letters, as with any other work of literary authorship....The copyright owner owns the literary property rights, including the right to complain of infringing copying, while the recipient of the letter retains ownership of 'the tangible physical property of the letter itself.' Having ownership of the physical document, the recipient (or his representative) is entitled to deposit it with a library and contract for the terms of access to it." (citations omitted) --] <sup>]</sup> 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::In the UK it all depends. If the author/photographer is paid to write a manuscript/photograph something then the copyright is held by the person paying the author/photographer. It all depends on the contract drawn up at the time. If the document/photo is unsolicited then the copyright remains with the author/photographer. Obviously in certain circumstances if an unsolicited document/photo is sold then dependant upon the contract the copyright could pass to the purchaser. --''']]''' 17:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::]. ] (]) 02:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::: (after ec) Thanks. I did contact ArbCom and Mike, and have gotten a response back from Mike. -- ] (]) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

== Quick Question ==

Let's say I think I have interacted with another user before. I seem to recall there being a tool that shows article overlap. Can someone clue me in? - ] ] 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
*http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php works. ] (]) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
: is another, which lets you compare more than two accounts. Don't over-interpret the results, though; there are a lot of factors that might lead two editors to have a lot of pages in common. When only comparing two accounts, it's better used as a starting point to look for suspicious behavior than a confirmation of guilt. You and I have just in the mainspace, for example. -- ] (]) 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

== Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster ] to return ==

A notorious sockmaster has been allowed to create a new account, but with limitations on his editing rights. I question the manner in which this happened and would like to see this discussed thoroughly. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent that makes the project vulnerable to gaming and undermines confidence in the blocking and unblocking processes. Just how far should AGF be stretched toward such disruptive users?

I would like to see wide community input. So far very few editors have been involved, and I am unsure of the matter. I have my own opinions on the matter, but the community should make the final decisions.

'''Notifications of this thread:'''

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

'''Relevant links:'''

* {{Userlinks|Dr.Jhingaadey}}

* ]

* ]

* ]

* ]

* ]: Lots of discussion.

* ]

'''Newer developments:'''

* ] of the banned user. It was started by ], whose role should be examined. Is his role a form of meatpuppetry? Should he be allowed to (mildly) "" (maybe a strong word, but I'm not sure what other word to use) users who question the "new" incarnation of a banned user? While I believe his actions may be unwise and ultimately futile, I AGF that he has the best intentions, and the desire to help someone in need is generally a good character trait. For that I applaud him.

* ] with lots of input by the involved ]

* ]: New identity of ].

Note that this user was still evading his blocks using various IPs right up to while these discussions were occurring!

'''Fundamental matters of principle to decide:'''

# Was proper unblocking procedure followed?
# Shouldn't the unblocking of such a community banned user first be discussed using an RfC/U, rather than occurring on an obscure corner of Misplaced Pages (a userpage) where few editors realized what was occurring?
# To what degree should editors here be allowed to act as advocates/meatpuppets for banned or newly returned users who are under "probationary" status?
# Should this banned user be allowed back at all under these circumstances?
# Should the new account be closed and the banned user's bans be reinstated?

'''Consider this thread to be the start of such a discussion.'''

-- ] (]) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Responses ===

I don't a problem with it as long as he is watched closely, we can see where it goes from here. Banned users should be given the opportunity to reform. ] (]) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

: Have you read the links? There are procedural issues to discuss that are setting precedent. -- ] (]) 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::We aren't the Supreme Court; we don't have to follow precedent. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:::It's human nature to follow examples of what's been done before as a guide and justification for how to behave now. Misplaced Pages will be no more successful at waving its hands and saying "Precedent doesn't matter" than Communism was at denying the existence and power of the profit motive. Precedents '''''do''''' matter, and we'd all better get used to the idea that things we do now will potentially be used as models for things done in the future. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I agree. Therefore it would be extremely helpful if BullRangifer could clarify what these precedent-setting procedural issues are in his opinion. His thinking tends to be a bit woolly, and I simply can't follow him here. --] (]) 21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::::: Those procedural issues are mentioned in part of that last five point list. -- ] (]) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

#Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy
#Since this isn't a full unblock/unbanning, that is not a big problem. What occurred here is pretty reasonable. However the community should have been alerted to this, as they are now.
#If someone wants someone back then there is probably a good reason, assuming good faith. A ban is a community thing after all.
#We can take this slowly from here and see what happens.
#If the community objects to this allowed return then yes.
] (]) 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We do a lot of this - if a blocked/banned editor says "Oh I get it, I won't do that anymore" we tend to give them another shot. You mentioned that this user was evading blocks with IPs recently - do you have evidence of this you can share? If so, did it come after the ? Its fairly easy to reblock someone if it turns out they don't truly want to contribute productively. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:I believe many if not all of the IPs are in ]. But it's a bit tricky to find them because they are mixed with those of last year. I am not aware of any since the promise. By the way, as he seems to be using dial-up, changing IPs should not be held against him. I guess part of the problem was that admins did not have the technical means to communicate "we really mean it" under the circumstances. --] (]) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:: He's welcome to use dial-up IPs, but he should have logged-in. That's why we have usernames. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors, especially for disruptive purposes, is forbidden here. If you have a username, you're supposed to use it. -- ] (]) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer is overreacting to RJ (I will call him by the initials of his ] username). Currently he is the only one doing so; last year, when RJ first appeared at ], there was an entire mob. In my opinion:
* The greater part of the disruption that surrounds RJ is caused by overreactions from the anti-homeopathy camp.
* Even under the most favourable circumstances that we can realistically expect, RJ will not be a net positive to Misplaced Pages. To one side he is an easy target; to the other he is an embarrassment with his extravagant claims of healing cancer and AIDS and whatnot with homeopathy.
This opinion is based in part on what happened here before it was found out he was ] and on his editing history at Citizendium.

BullRangifer's questions are bit misleading. They, and the title of this section, assume that he is formally community banned, perhaps even multiply. His real status is that of an editor who was getting on everybody's nerves, who was blocked a bit out of process, and who acquired the status of a "no admin willing to unblock" de-facto indefinitely banned user through a series of naively transparent block evasions. (E.g. initially he used various subsets of his real name in various spellings.)

Under these circumstances and assuming what I believe is the standard reading of the "no admin willing to unblock clause" (that the ban ends as soon as an uninvolved admin is willing to unblock – please correct me if there is no general agreement on this) it would be totally OK for JWSchmidt to unblock one of RJ's accounts. I am not sure why the new account, but there doesn't seem to be much wrong with that either since Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. --] (]) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

*I agree that the user was banned by the "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" community ban process and that any uninvolved admin may unblock; but I also believe that decision to unblock is subject to community discussion to determine whether there is consensus that the user remain banned. In other words, we all have a stake in the "de-facto ban" and we have a right to consider whether in the absence of a de-facto ban we would have banned the user by another process and would not now lift the ban; in which case the unblocking would be a bad idea.
*I generally think we should give the user a chance and that sock bans can become poblematic because a blocked user trying to get a fresh start but not understanding how things really work quickly becomes an illegal sock, even if no harm is intended. So, in general, I would support unblocking. However,
*I find the provided by Scientizzle at ] to be particularly troubling as it shows the user has been given a "second chance" before and I do not generally support third chances.
*I applaud JWSchmidt for this bold and demanding endeavor.
*I am not willing to give the user a third chance but I will support giving JW a chance to prove to me that I should. In other words, you won't get any leeway from me and I'm fairly certain you'll be bashed against the rocks, but I wish you luck and will support your attempt by waiving from the shore you crazy fool.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Re your first point: I totally agree, and I expected that BullRangifer would start a community ban discussion. If that's what he intended, he could have made it a bit clearer. --] (]) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::* The last two points in the five point list mentions this, and I ended with a shot from the starting gun, so to speak. Now the community is having its input, and that's what I believe is the proper procedure BEFORE unblocking such a user. -- ] (]) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:I offered this user a "second chance" months back because I felt the banhammer came down too quickly on an obviously upset newbie editor that may not have received sufficient instraction and warning. It became quickly apparent, however, that this editor (at that time) was not willing to ''appropriately'' engage the relevant issues, instead engaging in largely combative behavior to achieve ends that were at odds with the Misplaced Pages pillars. It's been a while since then, and little I've seen since convinces me that this editor is willing/able to distance himself from his deeply held beliefs to work within NPOV, UNDUE, RS, FRINGE, NPA, and all the other relevant acronyms.
:I also can't help but note that the most recent incarnation, {{user|Avathaar}} was created 12:05, June 11, 2009, half an hour after his ] made an appearance and four hours ''before'' JWSchmidt's of another chance...my suspicion is that this editor would likely have continued this nonstop cycle of disruption and block evasion using this account anyway. (Note: I see no evidence of block evasion since JWSchmidt's offer.)
:All that said, I'd be comfortable echoing every point Doug made here. JWSchmidt appears perfectly willing to see this through and has laid out a rather restrictive re-imersion program that has at least a chance of working. I wouldn't have the patience...As I said to JWSchmidt: give it a shot. &mdash; ]'']'' 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that anybody who sees any good in someone with this user’s history has just completely lost the plot. There’s assuming good faith, and then there’s handing an escaped mental patient a loaded gun. I don’t see any good in allowing this user to return, other than maybe giving an admin some training in chasing him around fixing the damage he does. —&nbsp;<em>]</em><sup>(])</sup>, 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::"" <-- That is a fair description of what Misplaced Pages got from past treatment of this editor, including the initial failure to welcome him and explain our rules. "allowing this user to return" <-- Misplaced Pages cannot stop him from returning. "completely lost the plot" <-- The problem is larger than this one editor. Misplaced Pages has ] and the world is not blind to this phenomenon, even if many administrators are. I agree with "Dr.Jhingade" that there is room for improvement in Misplaced Pages and I'm willing to listen to his suggestions for how to improve articles such as ]. All I've done is make it clear that I'm willing to listen as long as he follows our rules. It is up to him to decide if he will follow the rules of Misplaced Pages and make constructive contributions. It saddens me to see administrators who only have one tool -the mighty ban hammer- and an approach to new editors that treats difficult contributors like nails. I have the time to treat "Dr.Jhingade" like a person. If my effort falls short then all the nail bashers can continue their game of wackamole. --] (]) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment:''' I don't see any problem with JWSchmidt helping the editor to become a constructive contributor, but the multiple accounts are a bit worrisome. I'm frankly not sure what talk page to leve a request on, but I think s/he should be strongly encouraged to pick one username and stick with it... whichever one is preferred can be unblocked by JWSchmidt, but the other accounts should be locked down. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:: I agree with SB Johnny. Right now, TTBOMK, none of the blocked accounts have been unblocked, so we are actually dealing with a currently blocked editor who has never been unblocked, but who is allowed to edit anyway (at present in a limited manner). I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. He needs to have one account unblocked and use only that one, IF HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK AT ALL. -- ] (]) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

* Dr. Jhinghaadey has shown absolutely no respect for or interest in this site's goals, content policies, or conduct policies; he constantly creates disruptive socks and then lies blatantly, if unconvincingly, when caught red-handed... someone please explain why we're contemplating abusing the time and goodwill of editors who actually bother to respect this site's policies? I'm not going to stand in the way of allowing him to edit one account's userspace, but I will reblock him myself without a second thought if he fails to adhere to those terms, or if those terms are expanded without input from the people whose volunteer efforts are most adversely impacted by Dr. Jhinghaadey's ]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment'''. I have tweaked my statement involving JWSchmidt in the introduction to this thread. I AGF in his intentions, even if I think they are unwise and ultimately futile. -- ] (]) 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Question for JWSchmidt:''' Who formulated in Avathaar's first edit? -- ] (]) 04:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

*Reply to ? Several days after with "Dr.Jhingaadey" on his user talk page, he contacted me. I told him what I thought he would have to do in order to be able to participate at Misplaced Pages. After several more days he informed me that he had posted a statement at ]. That statement says what I told him he has to do if he wants to edit at Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:* Thanks. I was wondering about that wording as it doesn't sound like anything he would have the slightest ''ability'' or ''understanding'' to formulate on his own. -- ] (]) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment''' I find that the restrictions set by JWSchmidt are enough to warrant the least disruption possible while trying to recover a banned user for wikipedia. Whether Jhingadeey is actually recoverable is a different matter. If JWSchmidt manages to get him to become a productive editor then he can bring him here for review, if he doesn't manage it.... then... well, then JWSchmidt will have learned a valuable lesson about how you can't force people to change unless they don't want to change. --] (]) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Additional Comment by Doug''' - Oh, and the user needs to ''disclose all socks'', certainly he may not be able to disclose IPs as a practical matter (he may have no idea what ones he's used) but any registered accounts must be listed on his userpage before we go any further. Any that are discovered post hoc, even if created before this discussion, would be a VERY BAD THING.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Interviews needed.''' I would like to have users question him about each of the four parts of :

* ''""I have previously been blocked from editing as ]. I agree to editing restrictions and mentoring: 1) I will only edit my own user pages until the Misplaced Pages community lifts this editing restriction. 2) I will restrict my edits to specific suggestions for how to improve Misplaced Pages 3) I will not behave at Misplaced Pages as an advocate of homeopathy or proclaim any personal partisan point of view with respect to the efficacy or medical value of any treatment, therapy or style of medical practice. I now recognize that such advocacy disrupts Misplaced Pages and does not help to improve the encyclopedia. 4) I now understand the goal of creating neutral Misplaced Pages articles that describe, in a balanced way, what is said in all reliable sources about each topic."-] (]) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)"''

I'd like to have him explain to their satisfaction what his understanding actually is. That can be done in appropriately titled sections on his user talk page. We can thus ascertain for ourselves if he is (1) ''capable'' of rehabilitation and (2) really ''willing'' to reform. This is a process that I envision will be happening with candidates for rehabilitation in the ]. Personally I wouldn't recommend him for that project, but at least a probing of his thinking might satisfy many here about his suitability for readmission to full rights here. This can be done as a form of RfC/U where he is participating. Anyone can start the process. Go for it! -- ] (]) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:I would add that any further sockpuppetry by this user will put a speedy end to the slack he's being given. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::Absolutely, and I agree with BullRangifer that he must be subject to questioning. I'm not sure I'd say he has to run all of this before there is any decision, just make the decision "subject to". It's a valid part of his rehab anyway - part of "coming clean". If he balks, he's toast.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::In the past he has shown no hesitancy to tell bald-faced lies when it suits his purpose. So, his response to any questioning should be taken with a few grains of salt (or a whole shaker-full). ] (]) 08:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(&larr;) I think it's pretty clear that he should stick to one account and disclose the others, but outside of that I think we should do best to close this thread and let JWSchmidt work with him without a parallel discussion hanging over them. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== CAPTCHA word list ==

Someone may want to look through the word list used to generate the CAPTCHAs (like the ones shown to IPs who add links) and remove "inappropriate" words. The CAPTCHA I was recently served with was "headshits". I'm amused more than offended, but you may want to change things so that you avoid serving up profanity with a vandalism prevention tool. Kinda sends the wrong message. (BTW, sorry if this notice is misplaced. I tried to find the most appropriate location, and this was the best option listed at ].) -- ] (]) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
: Some previous discussion is at ], and see also {{bug|16166}}. ]] 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::Its only offensive if you don't see heads...hits ;) ] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:::]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

* All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
* Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
* {{User|Lightmouse}} is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
* {{User|Tony1}} indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
* {{User|Greg L}} indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
* {{User|Ohconfucius}} is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
* {{User|The Rambling Man}} admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
* {{User|Kotniski}} reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
* Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: {{User|Dabomb87}}, {{User|2008Olympian}}, {{User|Colonies Chris}}, {{User|SkyWalker}}, {{User|HJensen}}, {{User|Dudesleeper}}, {{User|John}}, {{User|Tennis expert}}, and {{User|G-Man}}
* {{User|Pmanderson}} is topic banned for 12 months.
* {{User|Locke Cole}} is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
* {{User|Kendrick7}} is topic banned for 12 months
* {{User|Arthur Rubin}} admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

] 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

]

*While I'll refrain from comment here on the actual decision, I'd like to thank the committee for their attention to this long-standing heated dispute. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
*I'll second that. It's refreshing to see ArbCom issue decisions and remedies in a timely manner. ]] 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
]
**''Timely?''<small>Thanks to the hardworking arbitrators, actually. Good job.</small> <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
***Case Opened on 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
***Case Closed on 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Unenviable job''', and hard on the heels of Ayn Rand and Scientology ] (]) 02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:*Plus Macedonia, and Obama soon to follow. ] (]) 07:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*To be blunt, I wouldn't call it timely, but I am surely not complaining. I think the minor disruptions in between led to delays, such as the RfC, the introduction of new evidence near the end and the petty bickering even during the case. ArbCom had a lot to deal with, and this case involved intricacies, including just about every type of "bad behavior" that is possible on Misplaced Pages. Arbcom is to be commended for their persistence and effort dedicated the case. ] (]) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*The time taken relative to the difficulty of the case is far less for the 2009 Committee than it was for the 2008 Committee, and for that they deserve credit. ] (]) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*I'd also like to give a shout out to {{user|Ryan Postlethwaite}}, one of the clerks for the case. He went above and beyond the call of duty in designing and managing the latest RfC on dates so that the stalemate could be broken. ] (]) 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*Awaiting corrections. ] ] 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*I hope that ArbCom doesn't burn out. With so much work done, no matter the time frame, a break might be in order. Even the Supreme Court breaks from session. I honestly recommend a break for all of them even if it's only a couple weeks. There is no deadline on Misplaced Pages. Seriously. ] (]) 06:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*''Still'' awaiting the correction of ], which has been notified as Proposed Remedy 9.4, rather than the 9.3 that superseded it (see implementation notes and Final decision Remedy 7. An easy enough error to make in such a huge case, but ... is it going to be fixed with separate wording for me in the notification? ] ] 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:* Now done. You ''were'' free to simply ] it ], y'know! ;) ] 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::*I wasn't aware of that; I wouldn't have dared to alter a case synopsis posted by a clerk, actually—it's not my right. I'll do so on my own talk page, now that you've given the OK. Thanks. ] ] 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Anna Anderson ==

'''Short version''' - Major content dispute, disruptive editing and at times personal attacks by various editors at ] and ]; I need some help.

'''Long version:'''
*'''Main article involved:'''
**{{article|Anna Anderson}}
*'''Main editors involved lately:'''
**{{user|ChatNoir24}}
**{{user|Aggiebean}}
**{{user|Finneganw}}
**An IP range (75.21...) who has claimed to be a "Rev. Antonio", among other names, and claims to have invoked ] in the past, but has an odd understanding of "vanish", as they continue to be quite active.
*'''Admins involved:'''
**{{admin|Trusilver}} (had tried to serve as a neutral mediator, but appears to have become inactive in the last few weeks, probably due largely to being sick of dealing with this)
**{{admin|AlexiusHoratius}} (had tried serving as a neutral mediator, but is sick of dealing with this)

A little over a week ago, an editor came to my talk page asking for admin attention about an edit war that had been going on at the ] article. I checked out the article, found a fairly serious content dispute + edit war going on, and fully protected the article for a week, telling the various parties involved to use the talk page to come to a consensus and not to edit war. I took on the role of an informal mediator, attempting to get the various parties to come to compromises on various issues before full protection lapsed, thinking that whatever had happened in the past, (and the article has quite a history) if some compromise could be reached then further disruption and thus further full protection could be avoided. These attempts at informal dispute resolution bore little fruit, as most of the editors involved seem rather entrenched in their views and unwilling to compromise. Additionally, my knowledge of the article's topic and its related issues (including the validity of DNA testing) is very limited. As the period of full protection was about to expire, I asked the editors involved to continue discussing things on the talk page, and to consider ''any'' major edit to already be disputed and thus in need of talk page consensus. I also informed them of the various venues for dispute resolution, sock investigations and so on, and told them to go there to report further incidents.

Since page protection lapsed a few days ago, the article itself has been fairly quiet, save for one event when {{User|ChatNoir24}} started making major edits without discussing them again, which were reverted and for which I gave them a final warning in the hopes of another edit war not breaking out. While the article itself has been quiet, the article's talk page (and mine) have not, with various parties continuing to call for the others to be blocked/banned, etc. I fear that another edit war and more general disruption is right around the corner.

The center of much of this seems to involve specific evidence on the identity of the article's subject. Not unlike the dreaded FYROM/Macedonia issue, this subject, while lacking a great amount of interest from the general population, is a complex one and has small circles of diehard believers split into various camps. Thus, the chances of simple dispute resolution having much of an effect are small. In addition to the main content dispute, there is also peripheral disruption by an IP range starting with 75.21... (the specific IPs used can be found at the history of ]) who I believe claimed at one point to be one "RevAntonio", who may or may not have been blocked/banned at some point, and also claims to have invoked a right to vanish, (see Trusilver's logs) yet hasn't vanished.

Basically, I'm not sure what else to do here, and I'm looking for wider community input. The article itself is a mess, so something should be done with it, but as you can see from ] and ], trying to come to a compromise is like pulling teeth. I think at this point an RfC is certainly in order on the content dispute, but I am inexperienced with these and could use some help. The peripheral disruption should also be dealt with, but I'm no longer comfortable using the tools, given the rather low threshold for "involved admin" lately (I also don't know how to do range blocks). I'm thinking at minimum, a range block and/or topic ban for 75.21..., and some sort of parole for the others (Aggiebean, Finneganw, and ChatNoir24). At the very least, I guess I just need some more people looking into this. ]]</span> 04:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:This is in re the above by Alexius: I am Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez, who used the username RevAntonio (and am now the villainous IP address). I did invoke the Right to Vanish, which was immediately used to blacken my identity here. Trusilver himself had posted a warning that much of my personal information had been revealed at Misplaced Pages; of course Trusilver did much to damage my identity here, as did aggiebean.

:I did return after invoking RTV; it was a gross error in judgment. I will not deny it. My concern is that those other editors are setting me up, as a sock puppet, vandal and threat-monger. I have warned them that I would report them, but now I can do nothing because I am not a regtistered user.

:I now answer Alexius' charges against me specifically herein, and plan never to return to Misplaced Pages. I see Alexius has done some biased homework, but I am no saint, I have been a pain. I grant you all, that is a fact. What I beg of you is to be fair, be thorough, watch for the true sock puppetry (involving username ChatNoir24 and possibly aggiebean/finneganw), and please, don't lay 20% discipline on one editor and 80% on another just because you don't like that other.

:My final word of advice is that you pay heed to Trusilver's reluctance to put a permanent range block on my IP range. If that seems fair and balanced, then you will do it--perhaps you will do it no matter what. I have tried to better the page], and Alexius has explained to you that those other editors will not allow consensus. You'll see for yourselves. That is all I have to say.] (]) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if it's appropriate that involved editors post here, but since it's been started, I will add my commentary. If I am wrong to post here, please tell me and I won't do it again.First of all, contrary to the claims above, Finneganw and I are not the same person, he was an editor here about 2 years before I even came here, other people know him AA and other articles. Everyone involved in the Romanov online community knows me, though I may use different names on different websites, I never deny I am me, and the creator of the "Anna Anderson Exposed" website. I am a woman from the east coast of the US. Finnegan is a man and lives in a different part of the world than I, and as you will see from the posting and talk logs, a very different time zone.

Rev, 75.whatever, etc. is not a victim and is alone responsible for the view others have of him, and his long history on Anna Anderson and Noahidism bears this out. I know going through the past histories of these pages, and the talk pages of those involved is an unpleasant and monumental task for someone, but if it is done, I have no doubt what Finneganw and I have been trying to say will be proven. As far as him being ChatNoir, I realize that IPs will never show this because he uses different ones, Chat uses IPs the LA area(I know this from my own forum) and Rev from Rockville, IL.(as I have traced the ones he uses here) As a mod on other forums, I know that different IPs do not necessarily exhonorate a person from sockpuppetry due to there now being ways to use IP programs that show a false location. However I can't get over the similarities in their rhetoric, devoted defense of Peter Kurth, the way one appears when the other is blocked or gone, and the general over the top attitude and behavior displayed by both being very much alike.

ChatNoir (whether or not he and Rev/75.IP are the same person or not) has been an issue on many message boards over the years on the AA topic and has gotten many discussions locked up for his repetitious and unmoving pro AA rhetoric that is oblivious to now proven reality. His outright refusal to accept the now proven scientific and historical fact that Anderson was not Anastasia have caused much disruption in the article and the talk pages here on wikipedia. He firmly holds to the belief that she was Anastasia anyway, people who were against her were paid off and that even today there is major though unspecified conspiracy to cover up her 'true' identity, and that those of us who want to say she wasn't Anastasia are 'afraid' of the 'facts.' Yes, I have called his position delusional, I don't deny that, because it is exactly the right word to describe it. Due to his unwavering support for a disproven claimant, he is the wrong person to be editing the article. It needs to be accurate and truth based, free of fantasy and allusions to possibilities that she 'may' have been Anastasia after all, which he tries to add. We have an obligation to readers who come here looking for information. They deserve the truth, not games and the hangups of a small group of people who cannot let go. Finneganw and I have repeatedly tried to write a factual article but he continues to change things to his POV using now discredited sources and has even vandalized our writings by adding POV quotes in the middle of our sourced sentences trying to pass them off as being the same source when they are not. His POV vandalism and inaccurate information are what is ruining this article, and what needs to be stopped.

I am fully prepared to due whatever I need to do to help resolve this, however I will never consent to appeasing editors and their POV that is completely proven wrong. The editor Finneganw, who has worked on this article long before I got here, and I have facts and sources to back up everything we are trying to do and reality is on our side. This should be enough, and it is the best thing for the article.] (]) 12:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Some sort of conflict resolution is needed with this article, preferably by an administrator who is at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter. The discussion has occasionally lapsed into insults and accusations flung furiously back and forth. I disagree with Aggiebean on whether the book by Peter Kurth about Anna Anderson should be included in the article and have outlined my position on the article's talk page and on editors' talk pages. I'm tired and exasperated by the ongoing conflict, but I'm also interested in the outcome. I'd like to see this article eventually sourced line by line, using a standardized citation method, and become a starred article. I think the subject matter deserves it. But it needs a fresh pair of eyes. Aggiebean and Finnegan are two separate people as far as I know. ChatNoir has been accused of being Peter Kurth himself, but Kurth posted under his own name a few years ago on that site, so I'd guess they're two separate people. I don't think identity of the posters matters provided they cite whatever goes into the article. --] (]) 13:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm has been a very prolific editor here, and I do not have any issues with his/her behavior and he/she has caused no irrational disruption like the others. However I personally feel from what I have seen that Bookworm feels sorry for Kurth and would like to include some of his POV in the article as an appeasement or a 'small victory' because he lost the big one on the identity issue (though he does not accept those results) I don't feel this is the best thing for the article. I don't believe that making Kurth and a few of his diehard supporters happy is worth sacrificing the integrity or accuracy of the article. Much of his book is based on discredited writings of supporters now proven wrong, and none of those things should be used in the article or stated as a fact. This is not about who 'wins' or 'loses', who does or doesn't like whom, as some claim, this is about real facts and truth being presented in an article meant to be informational for large numbers of people, including children and students. Concern for someone feeling sad about the realities presented in the article should not take precedence over truth, fact and accuracy. I also disagree that we should present both sides and 'let the reader make up his mind.' You wouldn't do this with any other historical or scientific article, would you? That may have been okay while it was still a mystery, but now that the mystery is solved and we have a right and a wrong answer, the article needs to reflect that information. There should be no obligation to the other viewpoint now that it is officially disproven, and for this reason, the article should not have to be 'balanced' with a 'side' that no longer has a case.

As far as Kurth being Chat, I was told by several people as soon as the name 'Chat' started to become active in AA circles that he was Kurth, but I didn't know for sure until I found out the hard way for myself. After speaking on discussion forums and in private messages numerous times with both over several years, and reading the old wiki and old online chat and talk pages I had nothing to do with from years ago on which Kurth posted under his own name, I am thoroughly convinced Chat is indeed Kurth. I am not alone in this view. Reviewing the posts made here by Kurth in the past(Before my arrival), and how when he was gone "Chat" immediately arrived and took up the identical banner, rhetoric and attitude, and the way Chat endlessly defends Kurth and his 'eminent' book, and removes sources in the article by other authors and replaces them with "Kurth" only make me more inclined to believe Chat is Kurth. Whether or not Chat is Rev I do not know, but I am convinced Chat is Kurth. I doubt his identity will ever be resolved due to lack of mathching IPs, but it doesn't even matter. Regardless of who he is, his disruputive editing is the issue here.] (]) 14:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::I don't know Kurth or feel sorry for him. Feelings don't have any bearing on whether to include a work in the article or not. I simply disagree with Aggiebean and Finnegan about the proper use of his work in the article. It's a biography of Anna Anderson, probably the most complete biography thus far, and the article is about Anderson. I've explained how I feel it should be used in other postings and why I think it should be one of the books referenced in the article. I see that another post on the talk page of the article from a disinterested editor notes the unprofessional tone of the article and use of words such as "ludicrous" and "of course." This is also one of my major problems with the article as it stands. The language used in the article must be entirely neutral. Pejorative terms cannot be used to describe Anderson, her supporters, her opponents, or others referenced. It must be objective and well-referenced and give a "just the facts" accounting of Anderson's life and times. Right now it does not. For any administrators viewing these postings, I'm sure it's evident that it's a complex and acrimonious dispute and it has degenerated into name-calling, accusations and occasionally hysteria. I'm not sure how to resolve it, but we could use some help here. --] (]) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to write very little here. My main concern is there have been a small group of fanatical Anderson supporters who have been trying to push over a number of years proven historical and scientific misinformation on the page. They always use the same discredited source by Peter Kurth. That piece of work has been proven to be grossly inaccurate and based on discredited references. It is not neutral to use such a text. It is not a biography at all. That is a fallacy invented by Bookworm who has sadly, for whatever reason, constantly supported its use when editing in spite of many other credible sources which have been authenticated as being highly accurate. In fact Bookworm has been engaged in removing sources which disprove Kurth. Kurth's work is in fact a very unsubtle attempt to push a POV agenda that Anderson was Anastasia. That view has been totally discredited. In fact any information that displays any criticism of Anderson is either deliberately left out in Kurth's book or those who worked her out and actually knew the real Anastasia have their views incorrectly represented or their characters totally attacked. The only 'biography' or 'autobiography' of Anderson is one written not by her but her supporters entitled, 'I, Anastasia'. Bookworm refuses to accept this and blindly pushes Kurth. I have only ever been interested in accuracy in this article. Sadly Anderson supporters choose to derail the process constantly. Bookworm has never played a neutral role in editing. In fact the constant defence is that readers can work out the situation themselves. It is difficult to imagine how that is possible when inaccurate information is presented pretending to be fact. Another recent Anderson supporter 'editor' went by the name of Ferrymansdaughter. Like ChatNoir24, this editor has created massive problems elsewhere distorting factual information. Sadly the role of ] is all too well documented.

Consensus is not able to be reached with editors who refuse to accept proven historical and scientific fact. I hope that administrators can see that it is not difficult to sort this situation out as[REDACTED] has always prided itself on presenting accurate verifiable articles. Sadly Anderson supporters are incapable of providing such information. I believe the article should be considerably shortened. In fact I believe all the information below the 'contents' page should be removed. The article is of little interest to[REDACTED] readers apart from Anderson supporters who wish to deliberately present an extreme POV inaccurate article. ] 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:First, I am NOT Peter Kurth. But I do admire his meticulously researched book about Anna Anderson. It simply cannot be ignored in this article. It chronicles the life of Anna Anderson from the Landwehr Kanal to Charlottesville. It tells about people who rejected her and acknowledged her. It gives us reports from doctors and scientists, and it quotes personal letters and testimonies from supporters and opponents. No matter what the outcome was, the information remains the same. Nothing has been discredited or is no longer valid. I have several times asked the contributers here to point out exactly what is discredited, and so far, they have been unable to come up with a single thing. Only accusations like "it could not have happened" etc. Some have mentioned "I, Anastasia" as her "biography". This book draws heavily from Frau Rathlef and Gleb Botkin, the two people who are being vilified as "discredited" sources for Kurth's book. I have difficulties understanding why they suddenly are acceptable in this book. For this article to succeed, all hearsay should be erased. The meeting at the Mommsen clinic should be Frau Rathlef's version which also agrees with Grand Duchess Olga's own letters to the invalid after the visit. Olga's later denial must then be presented as well. Unprofessional comments like "the dubious Botkin" etc should not be allowed. Telling the story about Anna Anderson the way it happened, has nothing to do with supporting her or opposing her. It simply describes her life as it took place. ] (]) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, nobody is saying "I, Anastasia" is a better book than Kurth's. Finnegan just brought it up to say it was supposedly her autobiography, though it is fiction. It is not acceptable.It borrows shamelessly from available sources for 'memories' and parts of it are paraphrased directly from the 1920 book "The Last Days of the Romanovs" which features depositions of people who were with the family in their last months and had a lot of information. The book and others, such as Anna Vryubova's, became gold mines of info that AA and her supporters passed off as 'memories.' No one is advocating using "I, Anastasia" in the article, and if you'll remember, when you used it as a source once we deleted it. Speaking of biographies, don't forget that AA herself considered Lovell to be her officially chosen biographer, though his book is even more biased and full of fictional episodes than Kurth's. The issue is, AA can't have a 'biography' because her 'life story' in those books is on the premise she was Anastasia, and she wasn't. I totally disagree with you, Chat, that presenting her 'side'is not the same as supporting her, and anyone who's read your edits and commentary will have no doubt where you stand. The reason I say some things 'could not have happened' is because we now have the fact that she wasn't Anastasia to prove this. Things like Rathlef helping her 'remember' are not true, because she could not have remembered a life that was not really hers. It was all faked, either by AA's acting or Rathlef's writing, or both. No, Rathlef's version of Olga's meeting was not what happened, and there is proof in the Vorres book, Olga's letter to Irene and interview in the Danish paper. She did not accept AA but Rathlef claimed she did and that was the beginning of her rep being attacked by AA supporters. So in telling the 'story' we cannot and should not tell such things as having actually occurred when they did not. So you see the information does NOT remain the same, because knowing she wasn't really Anastasia proves that much of the story did not really happen as told, and that they should not be presented as fact in the article.] (]) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:As for "I, Anastasia", I think Finneganw should answer for her/himself. And since you have not read the book, I think you should refrain from reviewing it. And I also think you should refrain from telling people where I stand. I know that much better myself, thank you!
And please stop this nonsense with "it is not true". Either prove that the presented story is incorrect, or stop your inane comments. As for Olga, I will answer that in her own words, written to the patient in Berlin: "You are not alone anymore, and we shall not abandon you." "I am thinking of you and remember the times we were together and you stuffed me with coffee, tea and cocoa." And that nobody can deny. It proves that Frau Rathlef's version is the correct one. Here is also a snippet of Bella Cohen's interview with Olga and Shura: The girl asked if the Grand Duchess and Sascha remembered the circular staircase that led up to the quarters of the Grand Duchesses from the room of their mother. Do you remember how we used to stand on that staircase and say good morning to her?” she asked. “And on Monday mornings mother would let us come down to her room and watch the hairdresser do her hair. We children used to sit on little stools at her feet.”
She turned to the Grand Duchess Olga: “I remember an old invalid lady-in-waiting – Bal – Bal,” the hand went up to her head, “oh, if I could only remember – Balyanova!”
There was such an invalid lady-in-waiting, but very few outside the intimate court circle knew of her presence.
“A woman used to come to my mother and solicit funds for an orphan asylum. Did you know her?”
“What was her name?” The Grand Duchess asked.
“Belgard,” the girl answered.
The Grand Duchess Olga has said that a woman by that name did come to the Czarina for such funds, but that the fact was little known.
“So you remember, Zhura, I had two parrots?” the girl asked, and Zhura nodded, for that was true, too, though the outside world can hardly have known of it.
And finally we have Olga's written confirmation that Frau Rathlef's depiction of the conversations at the Mommsen clinic were "quite correct." ] (]) 03:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::ChatNoir24 you have had everything explained in detail a great many times previously and still you continue giving grossly inaccurate information from highly discredited sources. It is high time it all stopped. It is so blatantly obvious from your last entry that you still believe Anderson was Anastasia even though it has all been completely disproven. None of what you write is verifiable as required by[REDACTED] for any article. ] 06:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more than time that all of the above stopped as the administrators can work it all out. ] 06:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the admins don't step in soon, Chat will rant on forever and continue to list the extraneous details and quotes of his disproven version of the story as he has done so many times. He will turn this page into yet another long winded tirade of repetition that ruined the talk page and has gotten many, many a message board thread locked by admins and mods who got fed up with its circular and never changing nature. This is an example of why we never get anywhere on this topic.] (]) 10:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:I am afraid that the reason we don't get anywhere, is that the two of you are much more interested in attacking other posters than contributing something useful. ] (]) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the posters we are 'attacking' it's their very, very wrong position and how it hurts the article. We have contributed much that was useful, until it was deleted, vandalized and/or hidden under a bunch of pro AA propaganda now discredited, example of which being your above post. I await the intervention of the mods/admins/mediators.] (]) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Which editor added terms like "ludicrous" and "of course" and other POV terminology? To get this ball moving, can we agree that someone should go in and remove pejorative or POV terms like that which have absolutely no place in an article? We can hash out the content as we go. This whole back and forth, tittle-tattle battle has GOT to stop. What a spectacle this has turned into. I wouldn't blame an administrator deciding he/she wants no part of straightening it out, though I hope someone will be brave enough because it badly needs doing. Everyone needs to chill out here. --] (]) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
== Faverdale ==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: |<span style="font-size: 85%;">{{{1}}}</span>}}</div>
] has been vandalized with the same text about 10 times in two weeks from about 5 sources. The first source was warned clearly. --] (]) 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:I semi-protected the page with a duration of one month. ] (]) 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


== Self reversion of edits by topic-banned editors ==
{{resolved|Current policy dictates that topic- or page-banned editors should make no edits at those pages. No need for further discussion on this ] (]) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)}}
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::{{{1}}}
----
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->

I've come across two examples where editors under a topic ban have made edits, then immediately reverted them with a comment that they are under a topic ban. The idea is that this draws another editor's attention, who can simply revert the revert, if it's good, to apply the change. ] has been doing this to ], however ] has just been ] for the same practice. What's the official view on this approach? Thanks <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

: Abd is specifically banned from that page and it's talk page, so it isn't a topic ban. He has been told not to make any edits, but to work through mediation. The ban was upheld by a recent ANI thread. Abd knew this would lead to disruption, as is evidenced by the ANI discussion. ] <small>]</small> 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:The AN/I discussion which upheld (emphatically) Abd's ''page'' bans from ] and ] is here: ].
:Abd, as a veteran and student of our myriad dispute resolution procedures, was well aware of the multitude of venues in which he could seek clarifications to, exceptions from, and modifications of his bans. It would have been trivial for him at any point to ask during the above AN/I discussion, or to ask the banning administrator, or to start a new discussion here, under what circumstances he might be permitted to edit the article from which he was banned by the community.
:Instead, he has chosen to deliberately violate the ban as a strategy to attempt to lessen its scope. It's the ''most'' inflammatory and confrontational approach that he could have chosen, and a disappointment from an editor who prides himself on his preference for slow, reasoned, deliberative discussions and processes. ](]) 14:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::Forgetting Abd's sins for a moment, self-reversion is being encouraged in one case, but a block imposed in the other for the same behaviour. I'm not defending either of them, but I'd like to clarify what the policy is. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::This is either an example of very bad judgment by Abd, or an attempt at ] and ]. Good block, but to much attention wasted. ]. --] (]) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: I don't believe it was either of these. It was clearly intended to be a constructive edit that would improve the quality of the project. --] (]) 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Actually, it qualifies as "bad judgment." I did not expect to be blocked. Had I stopped to think about the politics, which I didn't, I'd have correctly anticipated the block and the fuss, and would not have made the edit, it would then have been seen to be contrary to my policy of minimizing needless disruption, for, even if I was right as rain, a minor fix to an article wouldn't be worth it. I will not, by the way, go to the massively inconvenient and cumbersome process suggested by some as to how I can suggest these corrections. ScienceApologist and his supporters rejected this, and for quite good reason. --] (]) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:{{ec}} As I commented to Abd at his talk page, I don't think this method of allowing topic-banned editors to continue to contribute to the locale of their banning has been formally approved by the community, nor do I think it would be. I won't use any capitalized links to guideline pages here, but trying to bootstrap a new process by engaging in it oneself seems like an error in judgment. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 14:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:I should note here that when ArbCom imposes a topic ban, then the expectation is that ''no'' editing to the banned topic (or pages) are made. Self-reversion is, at best, an attempt to create and exploit a loophole. Not only is it likely to stoke the very problems the ban was meant to address, but it seems to be of very poor faith. I know I would view any such edits as a violation of the ban. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::Definitely a violation, if the conduct is as described. ] 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::: (comment by non-admin at least passingly familiar with this case and the ScienceApologist situation) This is technically a violation, creates additional work for interested editors, and wastes space on the servers. While they are actively involved in pointing out minor corrections to an article, a banned editor is not seeking out other ways to improve the project without disruption. That said, I have a difficult time supporting a block for .
:::I think Abd's argument for self-reversion is definitely invalid in cases where the edit in question carries even a whisper of a chance for disagreement, especially in this case where there is also a talkpage ban and there are plenty of editors active at the article. In a case without a talkpage ban, I can see where the method might be the easiest way to propose an edit, though I generally prefer copying chunks of text to the talkpage; even in that case, though, it might contribute to disruption if other editors of the article in question tare close to needing dispute resolution.
:::Abd could have pointed out the broken reference on usertalk to any number of editors (Enric Naval actually just implemented a fix to several similar reference names), but that moves the discussion away from articletalk. The edit might also have been accomplished while logged out, but encouraging sockpuppetry is rarely a desired outcome of a ban. On balance, I would suggest that banned editors spend their wikitime elsewhere or be subject to being blockedfor trivial edits. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::::There was no need to draw attention to anything, since I had already pointed out the problem in the talk page (indeed, Abd had noticed the problem because of that post). Abd should have simply suggested his fix in my talk page, like Hipocrite did since he is under the same ban. He was also free to post in the ] which is not covered by the ban, or in the user talk page of any of the users active in the page. I invite you to read the ] where Abd gives his reasons for not doing anything of the above, and for why he believed that his method was the best one, and to form your own opinion, and post here about it. --] (]) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Valid topic bans are valid topic bans. The people in question are not welcome to participate in the topic anymore, and in this case it was even said on WMC's talk page that, according to Socrates,
:''"The simple reason for this edit/reversion is so that attention is drawn to the error so that another editor who is not under the ban can simply revert his revert to apply the change (assuming it's good)."''
The point of a topic ban is that the user in question's feedback is no longer needed nor desired, and the articles in question are no longer his concern. Vigorously enforced topic bans can end a lot of problems. I have no problem with users being blocked here. The cold-fusion topics are no longer Abd's concern. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
: Abd is not topic banned from all things Cold Fusion. His ''community'' imposed ban is simply strictly limited to the editing of ] and its talk page.
: In addition, as was the case for when Science Apologist was making edits that were uncontroversial and clearly improved the article, this practice was considered acceptable even after having been repeatedly pointed out at enforcement discussions. I fail to see why Abd is being held to a different standard than was Science Apologist under similar circumstances. I similarly fail to see why we are blocking users for pointing out clearly constructive edits in an efficient manner. The sum total of Abd's edit was zero change to the article while providing an efficient means for some other non-banned editor to take responsibility for what is clearly a constructive edit. --] (]) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, well, the problem is always going to be that if someone wants to test the limits of a topic ban, then if they get banned, then ... what? It's no ones fault but their own and the blocking admin would be justified. I'm as lax about quality over other factors as anyone, but at some point you have to do something or else whats the point of any topic bans at all? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:(e/c)If an editor mistakenly makes an edit to a page from which they're banned, and reverts the edit on realising their mistake, there's no problem (although AGF only extends as far as the first mistake). If an editor makes an edit during a ban discussion, and reverts themselves after the discussion concludes that a ban is appropriate, again I don't see a problem (although this too could be gamed). By contrast, making an edit ''with the intention of immediately reverting oneself'' sounds to me like a textbook case of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. If you know you're not supposed to make an edit, don't make that edit.
:GoRight's protest (above) sounds like a confirmation that we tend to see problems when bans aren't strictly enforced, rather than when they are. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:Sometimes I see editors doing self-reversion just so they can create a diff link for the purposes of discussion. I'm on the fence about whether this is okay for a topic-banned user. ] 00:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::Abd's suggested edit was not in fact helpful as Enric Naval has pointed out, since Enric had already noticed it and Abd's solution didn't fix it. The other page banned editor Hipocrite has been able to function perfectly amicably and helpfully, without drawing undue attention to himself. Since Abd has been threatening to bring things yet again before ArbCom, I hope that he reads this page to see that his actions and editing style – in this case testing the limits, making comparisons with SA, baiting WMC – will not always generate sympathy from either ArbCom or the community. ] (]) 03:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:Everyone seems very focused on Abd here, so let me rephrase the question to focus on the point I'm trying to clarify: Should PJHaseldine be blocked for making self-reverts? What should we be saying to people that have been encouraging him to do this? (We need to be consistent in our approach so that editors under topic bans know unequivocally where they stand.) <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::History shows that bans or other restrictions should be simple and clear; to do otherwise invites endless wikilawyering and testing of limits. PJH should be told to stop but if he's been doing this for a while without objections then I would be hesitant to issue an ] block. ] (]) 08:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::: <s>I agree with ], there is a need for consistency here. The fact that SA and PJHaseldine were able to use this technique successfully to the benefit of the project only underscores the whimsical nature of the decisions being made here and that it asn't about what is good for the project that is detemrining the outcomes, but rather who your friends are. Personally I think that weakens the community and the project as a whole. --] (]) 16:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</s> For the record I was typing this at the same time as Fritzpol was closing it. :( --] (]) 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this behaviour before (including suggestions to use this method by Abd), and now again, resulting in different ways of handling the users. I feel that this is a loophole, and quite unnecessary in most cases:
* Note the section, count the lines, and quote the changed line and the text you want to change.
* Click edit on the page, make the change, click 'show changes', note the line-number the diff provides, and quote the changed line.
* If the change is too difficult, copy the contents to a user-sub-page, making the change and save, subsquently blank and request deletion, then writing <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=<revid1>&oldid=<revid2></nowiki> (revid1 = the revid of your user copy, revid2 = last version of the actual page) shows exactly your change.

And there may be other methods which show very well ''what'' exactly you think needs to be changed, without making actual edits yourself. These methods can be reported everywhere, on the talkpage (which was not possible for Abd, but there it ''was'' already noted), on a project page, on another users talkpage, &c. Another user can then make the change, clearly noting why &c. (clearly enough to avoid being accused of 'editing on behalf of a banned editor') It ], and onlookers (including editors who know about the ban, but are not knowledgeable in the subject) do not have to judge whether an edit was merely a simple spelling mistake, a simple repair or a real content/meaning changing edit.

I therefore do NOT believe that there is any need for the use of these loopholes, and this should be '''strongly''' discouraged. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:OK - can I ask why WP cannot simply make the relevant pages read-only for banned editors so we don't have to police this manually? Is this a technical limitation? I expected a topic ban to do this, and was really surprised that the ban requires the subject to comply. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 09:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::There is no real technical limitation, in practice. I.e., the software won't do it, but a bot could automatically revert edits by specific editors to specific articles, and compile a report file for review. It could be set to ignore self-reverted edits, or not, or to separately report them. Beetstra has a similar bot set up to deal with linkspam of sites or pages not blacklisted, perhaps because of significant substantial legitimate usage. Reports could be set up so that reviewing possible problem edits would be much more efficient than normal practice. If self-reverted edits were only considered violations if the content was abusive, self-reversion or bot-reversion takes all emergency out of it, allowing review only on complaint, and allowing banned editors a door back to cooperative activity with the community. Opposition to this seems to often carry with it a punitive edge toward banned editors, we should be careful about that. If self-reversion were allowed, and/or a bot were set up, we might actually ban more easily, putting an editor into a true 0RR condition with forced discussion for anything controversial, that doesn't depend on actual compliance, and if this is abused to make many useless edits, the reports would make that obvious at a glance, and the editor could be specifically warned (even automatically) or blocked. I see it as win-win, with editors who actually do want to contribute constructively, and who might have expertise with an article, expertise we lose with a total ban, being enabled to help, but being placed in a situation where they are dependent on other editors for actual implementation.
:::When ScienceApologist made a spelling correction to ], Hipocrite reverted it and went to Arbitration enforcement to complain (many of these complaints were filed by him, even after it was obvious that nobody was interested in blocking SA for making spelling corrections). I reverted Hipocrite, restoring the correction, thus turning a useless pair of edits into constructive value. --] (]) 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, these are the tools we have: A ban is a social construct, and a block is a technical measure, which is used only if necessary. Banned editors are often surprised to find that they are still technically able to edit. (I can recall one incident where an editor argued that they shouldn't be blocked for violating a ban, because they didn't think they'd be able to edit.) There was talk a while back of blocking editors from specific pages, but it was eaten by Bugzilla :-( <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, now that I'm unblocked, I can respond here. First of all, I was actually quite surprised to be blocked for the null pair of edits, based on the prior discussion of SA's spelling corrections and of my proposal. Sure, that may represent naivete on my part. I can be quite naive. But not usually twice. Had I anticipated the fuss over it, I would not have done it, and I certainly won't do that again if blocked again, unless the precedent and policy have become clear, permitting it, which I expect will happen in short order. As to the proposal about self-reverted edits I made then, it has many advantages not seen or realized by those who have argued against it, and this is not the place to examine that in depth. It does not, in fact, complicate ban enforcement; however, where it does, because an editor is abusing it, perhaps, it's simple to extend a ban to explicitly prohibit it. This is not the place to examine this and find consensus, as I see it, the environment is too hot, at least now. --] (]) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I had forgotten that self-reversion was proposed at ] There was no opposition expressed there, and support from one editor. It's probably time to open that discussion again. --] (]) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::::It's probably time to work on the encyclopedic content and not waste any more time on ]less discussions. --] (]) 15:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. I didn't raise this report and I wouldn't have raised it, though I appreciate the intention of the editor who did bring the matter here. Would someone please close this? Thanks. --] (]) 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>

== Aradic-es ==

] continues to edit war with me on various articles while falsely referring to my edits as vandalism . He responds at the talk page or edit summary in an uncivil tone with one his bogus arguments such as "''well , people use English- not language itself!''" or "''bla bla bla... Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Misplaced Pages does not obey not any constituition!!''" or "''officially is Croats from BiH-end of discussion!''". Due to this I get a third opinion (as I know this will head down hill) which he responds to by ignoring and continuing to edit war and bait despite the discussion. Sometimes he goes so far as to copy & paste text trying to redo a move he created without a consensus or blatantly removes information he does not like such as . I lack the patience to deal with this user’s stubbornness and realize that I could have handled the situation better. I wish for admin intervention as I hope to spend the time in more productive ways. ] (]) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


Hm OK let me here present some of the ]' modus operandi:

*every my edit he reverts, calling my edit "nationalist nonsense" "POV pushing"
* at these articles he started the edit war although I have shown the symbols are used.
*he ignores all my sources and simply reverts . See history of ] article
*even in obvoius cases witht reliable acceptable source he keeps his POV pushing
*hardly ever uses talk page-usually after couple reverts


(to be continued)...--] (]) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Can someone explain this? ==

A lot of the articles I've seen so far have comments about how something is "too long" or that some data is "trivial". Am I to understand that articles are supposed to only have that information about the subject that are useful to understanding that subject? Like, if it doesn't do that, it doesn't need to be in, which I think keeps the article concise, brief and tight. I cannot seem to find any Misplaced Pages rule about that, though. - ] (]) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:Try ] and ] for a start. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::Inside WP:NOT you should look specifically at ].

::And if you want to get serious on improving your writing, try ] and go to ], pick an article about a topic that interest you, and read with attention to see how the information is distributed, how much space is dedicated to each aspect and fact, and how the information from the sources is summarized --] (]) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::I have done some of that. I'm on a public terminal most of the time, and have added things here and there. Once, when I was arguing about some bit of information that seemed unecessary (it didn't seem to have any instrinsic value), the other editrs said 'show me the policy about how we keep stuff out if it doesn't have instrinsic value to the article'. As I don't know everything, I let it go. What should I have done? - ] (]) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Recreate and AFD. ==

Hello,

Just looking for somebody to follow up on . The plan is to reinstate the article and then send it directly to AFD. The article is salted so I can't do it without an admin. Thanks!--] (]) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:Stop forum-shopping, please. You made the same request yesterday at ], which I declined on the basis that you should wait for the DRV to close first and see whether the closing admin agrees with you. Nothing's changed, and there's still no rush. ]] 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
: It is the only DRV left on the page, and we are waiting for it to be closed. I left an <nowiki>{{adminhelp}}</nowiki> tag on my talk page and the admin told me to come here. I really don't see why any of our admins can't follow ] and just close the DRV for us.--] (]) 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please close that DRV? It's now 10 days old. Thanks. ] (]) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

...is backlogged. --] (]) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:Mostly better - could use a few eyes on some of the more complex cases. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Uninvolved admin needed to close two discussions ==

] and ] should be closed. Thanks. –] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== THE COMBOFIX ARTICLE IS IN TROUBLE ==

WE GOTS TO SAVEZ IT. ] (]) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:{{moreinfo}} If you'd like us to help you, you need to elaborate on the problem. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I made this account to SAVE DA ARTIVLE!!!!!!!! ] (]) 22:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*It's at AfD; see ]. Let the discussion proceed in the normal way. --] (]) 22:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*I blocked this user as a sock of ]. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks. This user created a new page ], c&p the content of ] to it and was editwarring with others who had turned it into a redirect to keep the c&p version. This was clearly disruptive behaviour and I've protected the redirect too for two weeks by which time the AfD ought be over. --] (]) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::] now deleted. --] (]) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Concerns with "abuse log" ==

I just looked at my contributions list and it now has an "abuse log", not present a few days ago. Is this new?

This is very tactless. I've engaged in no abuse yet I now have a criminal record. ''I merely created my own sandbox for article work and this is called abuse. ''

Perhaps it should be renamed "filtering log" or "filter log". Misplaced Pages has some areas, procedures, or people that are very hostile. That's not nice.

Requests:

1. Rename abuse log to something less nasty.

2. Possibly start a rule book. There are too many unwritten rules or rules that are scattered. I am willing to help organise such a rule book. No writting is needed, just some links to existing pages.

] (]) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For the morbidly curious, here's the abuse log. Nothing exciting.

17:01, 14 June 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 176, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox/Liz. Actions taken: none; Filter description: user space link added in article space (details) (examine)<br />
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)<br />
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)

] (]) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* How about "Abuse filter log"? And maybe a message on the log screen to explain what it is? ] 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:The abuse filter did its job in alerting that something wrong was going on. From your talk page, I presume you know that you created the article ] when you presumable meant to create a user subpage of ]. ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;'''''</span><sup>]</sup> 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:I agree that the current naming sucks. --] (]) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:If we do add a message to this page, I suggest something like the following: "The abuse filter is a tool that automatically flags suspicious edits for review. Sometimes valid edits are accidentally included." ] 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's new. It's useful for those dealing with the ]. That may be renamed to something like 'filter log', yes, or only visible by default to admins, with option to enable for users, as it's not of much use for the vast majority. But I still don't get why ] is installed but doesn't work, we could avoid having this at all with that working (just one more click). ] (]) 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:Heh, only just noticed that on my contribs page. I have triggered the abuse filter a few times, and even filed a false positive report, but I can see how "abuse log" could be taken the wrong way - even knowing what it was I was embarrassed to see that it logged me "replacing content with obscenities" (on Michelle McM''anus'' articles, for anyone curious as to why I'd be replacing content with obscenities). This part worries me: anyone seeing my abuse log might take it out of context and assume I've been up to no good, when in fact I have a perfectly good explanation. Could the abuse log be made so that it's only visible to admins and the user concerned, maybe, or - better still - could items be removed from the log if they're reported as false positives?
:Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, I just noticed, too. To me, it sounds like "long term abuse" as opposed to setting off ]. ] 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::The name does seem problematic, as is the opaqueness of the information. I think I understand what triggered two of the three entries in my new abuse log, but after examining it quite thoroughly I still don't understand the third: "user space link added in article space" which is apparently link 176, which was triggered by an edit to ] in which I moved images around. I think if the information is going to be openly available to everyone, then it needs to be much clearer and labelled something other than "Abuse log", since what is being logged is not necessarily abuse, but the triggering of a filter which indicates the '''''possibility''''' of abuse. On the other hand, if it were perhaps made to be visible only to admins and the user involved, then what it's called is less important (although I'd still say that "Abuse log" is a poor choice; "Filter log" would have been better). <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:I replaced it with "abuse filter log" on two special pages I could determine and {{tl|userlinks}}. Someone who knows how the $2 in ] is generated may want to change that as well. Regards ''']]''' 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, for Heaven's sake, guys—it's a piece of software. "Tactless"—it's obvious what it means, and I don't think anybody should get offended. Can we not get on with improving the encyclopedia, or is it absolutely necessary to continue griping about ''really'' minor and cosmetic issues? <font color="#00ACF4">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:Huh? Yes, it's a piece of software. A piece of software we all use far too much. ;) Until it's sentient and makes decisions for itself, however, we have some say in how it is presented. And, while I think ] needn't be quite so disappointed in the wording, it can and probably should be phrased a bit more clearly. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly easy fix. Just edit ] to say "abuse filter log" or whatever. While you're at it, you might also want to change ], ], ], ], ] and ] (which appear as a consequence description on (say) ], the tooltip for the abuse log link on ], the box description on ], the navbar at the top of ] and don't know respectively). ] 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for identifying those messages. I just ] "abuse log" with "abuse filter log" on those. If someone working on the filter objects, they can delete/revert those again but unless anyone does, I do not think that anyone will mind that I did so. Regards ''']]''' 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::Did you know that depending on route, it's 52-55 miles from Penistone to Scunthorpe? I didn't think it was that far, but . <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

... is developing a bit of a backlog. Anyone else who might be interested in helping to clear it would be appreciated. :) ] (]) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:This page is not for reporting Administrator backlogs.--] (]) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Appeal from ] ==

''"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success."'' ]

Well, okay, it's not quite that bad ;-)

Current needs:

* Mentors who are experienced at dealing with difficult cases.
* Admins who are willing to give advice and help.
* ArbCom members.....ditto

We would very much appreciate the participation of more mentors, admins, and ArbCom members, especially since this project intends to be dealing with banned editors. This may often require extra careful forms of mentoring. We aren't interested in being gamed, as has been attempted by some banned users and socks. So far it's been relatively easy stuff to deal with, but we could risk that sneaky banned users will attempt to get back into Misplaced Pages through this process. We would like to AGF with everyone, but we know that AGF can only be stretched so far, and that editors with these types of serious problems may include those who will pretend anything in order to "get back in". Are you interested in getting involved, even just as observers who can give occasional advice, in a new project that is working in uncharted territory? Your help, experience and wisdom will be appreciated. -- ] (]) 00:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:(ec) Just looking at project title in the header, I thought this was going to be for users who spend way too much time editing and are in denial, á la "]". Bummer! I was going to sign up for help ;-) ] (]) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:'''User Rehab''' was proposed at WikiProject Council/Proposals, where there were 14 editors opposing with only 9 supporters, see ''']'''. I fail to understand why this project went ahead. In the words of ] on 2 June: ''"Misplaced Pages operates on consensus. For a project like this to be created without consensus is quite amazing. The community's opinions should have been gathered."'' --'']]'' 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:: The MfD ended with no consensus, and since projects are started by a consensus of those who wish to start them, it went ahead. It was even approved to change the wording of the text to make it clear that anyone may start a project when they wish. Opposers who ] have no right to stop a project that isn't violating any policies. -- ] (]) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::See: ]. (I personally wasn't aware of the MfD). --'']]'' 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Opposers ], eh? &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== WP:AIV ==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: |<span style="font-size: 85%;">{{{1}}}</span>}}</div>

] is now backlogged, thanks to me reporting a bunch of IP's from a guy possibly using an open proxy to vandalize AN/I. Sorry in advance for flooding the place... <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>]</font></font> <font face="Segoe Print"><sup><font color=green>]</font></sup></font> 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:No longer backlogged. ''']''' (]) 08:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Immediate Deletion Needed! ==
{{resolved|1=By ], Thank You! ] <small> ]</small>] 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)}}


] has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I accidentally created an incorrect portal. I was testing and I didn't realized it had saved, please see my contributions and look for the deletion notices. Thank You and Sorry! I may have used incorrect tags for deletion. Please delete any subpages for the portal also, again sorry! ] |<small> ]</small>] 09:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Unusual block request == == Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale ==


Crouch, Swale was for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a ]. In ] they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In ], Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ] and after questioning on his talk page basically ] he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. {{u|ToBeFree}} correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, ] (]) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
at the Help Desk might merit admin investigation. ] (]) 10:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There are too many missing dots here. {{U|Crouch, Swale}}'s editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
:That account only has one edit. I don't think it's terribly important.—] (]) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::one account restriction
::As a non-admin, I couldn't tell whether it had other deleted edits, so thought I'd punt it to you guys just in case. ] (]) 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
:::I'll be checking this with others.—] (]) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
:::I've figured out what it means by compromised. I've logged into the account and changed the password. Not that it really matters because no one's used the account in the first place.—] (]) 10:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
::::Thanks very much. I see the account's now been blocked anyway. ] (]) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? ] (]) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
::They then went to ] with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
::Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
::I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.


:: Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. ] (]) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


* I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --] (]) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Could someone please move, and if needed protect, this article and AfD. The AfD is on the fence a bit but if the article survives it would be helpful to have the AfD under the correct name when we ever may look for it. It's under ] with the AfD to match and I think both should be moved to the ] naming convention. Thank you. ] 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
*:Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.
*:@] Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support the site ban''' that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --] (]) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. ] (]) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== WMF research on admins ==
:Strange. ] shows that it was already moved to the proper capitalization back on June 10, tho I agree that ] is still the extant page (] is atm a redir to the BOROS version. Am I misreading something? ] (]) 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


There's a 70 page final report over at ]. Apparently it will be part of something called the ] in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. ] ] 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I saw that it was moved then reverted. I wasn't able to moved it when I tried and didn't want to muck anything further. ] 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:Hello, ], I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at ]). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. ] ] 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. ] (]) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Do we lean older or younger? ] ] 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Admins average older than editors and readers. ] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. ] (]) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi @], hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also ] if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.
::On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*I like this line {{tq|1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.}} That was my experience! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:], you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. ] (]) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins <small>(although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax ''formal'' requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements)</small>. However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). ] (]) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Move page ] ==
:::Ok, well I moved it to Boros and changed all the other bits (I think) in the AFD. Since I had to copy it out to a text editor to do the global find and replace, I may have screwed up some of the accented characters so my apologies to people in advance (tho I didn't see any faults). ] (]) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Likely this user will co-opt ] again, could you protect that with a link to the AFD by way of explanation? ] 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


== File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg ==
:::::I have BOROS watched, I'll see if they do it again and nuke accordingly at that time. ] (]) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for your help! ] 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Can an admin take a look at ]? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a ] request based on the last post added by the uploader to ]. -- ] (]) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Something's going on here ==


== Topic ban appeal from ] ==
Over the last few days, I've expressed legitimate concerns over the article ] which have resulted in attacks and misguided accusations. When several editors, including an administrator, attempted to block my attempts of working out a resolve, I nominated the list and its poorly-written sister article ] for deletion on the basis that it is clearly a neologism, and that no attempt has been made to work the main article into a serious discussion, and the "list" is very poorly-verified. This resulted in one editor continuing to make false accusations and the administrator threatening to block me if I didn't "step in line" and stop trying to improve these articles and limit the content to what is fully verified. I don't believe that these kinds of actions would be considered justified responses to good faith edits. (] (]) 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at ]. My reasons are as follows:
:] had just been kept at AfD two weeks prior. reverting the AfD seems like the right call there as it would have most certainly been proceedurally kept per ], and ], which would be the "parent" article would certainly not been deleted if the ''list of'' article, the "child" article, was kept. The most that would have happenned is the two being merged. Even that seems unlikely. This seems more like a clean-up issue of a list and ] may help. The ] of the article could spell out better what the inclusion criteria would be. There isn't a rush to fix it but you can certainly work to improve it. Also a note about the items listed there. If the sources for each band state "____ band is a nu metal band" the Misplaced Pages article for that band ''does not'' also have to state that. It would be nice but that's something to work out on each article's talkpage. If it's a subject that interests you I suggest working on the ''nu metal'' article and develop the history of the genre. On that main article not every band would be included; just the most notable ones that shaped the history of the genre in some way. ] 15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
# The bans are both over a year old.
::Who exactly has been attacking you, Ibaranoff? You say I'm a liar, and that people like me are what is wrong with Misplaced Pages, yet you claim you have been attacked? By whom, and some diffs to support this claim please. What are you trying to accomplish, first consensus did not agree with you, then you nominate the article for deletion after not getting your way, and now this thread? What is next? I would not complain about Gwen if I were you, she could have blocked you and been well within her rights to do so. As an indef-blocked user you promised not to engage in this type of behavior. You did well for a few months, don't throw it all away now. ] (]) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
# I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
# The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
# I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.
For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. ] (]) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Note''' Links to discussions . ] 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Thank you ] (]) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@], please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:39, 23 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)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    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 0 13 13
    TfD 0 0 0 2 2
    MfD 0 0 0 4 4
    FfD 0 0 2 18 20
    RfD 0 0 0 95 95
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

    NO CONSENSUS This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. Beeblebrox 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
      Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. Beeblebrox 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? 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." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lardlegwarmers block appeal

    Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement from Lardlegwarmers

    I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.

    References

    1. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-12/Op-ed

    Statement from Tamzin

    Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:

    Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.

    -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors

    • This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic ban block to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the ban block expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock this specific response Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that a block for this stuff seems harsh. TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Comments from involved editors

    • Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that apparently two wrongs make a right, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers

    This is not an administrative issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.

    I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? Hushpuckena (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    This seems like a question for WP:MOS, not WP:AN as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Liz 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting Administrator Abuse

    I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:Acalamari is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    So there's two things here.
    • First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is not vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than removing their comment (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
    • Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and casting aspersions on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) incivility, especially when you call them "delusional".
    If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok thank you for telling me TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Where are the diffs? M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which is technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were entirely within their rights to revert a bad removal. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit after having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote again , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used at all in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no violation at all, and the only thing needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a {{trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ban appeal from Rathfelder

    Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:

    I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
    I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.

    Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist", in wikivoice with a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      If I’m not unmistaken User:Jytdog was banned by ArbCom, not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic unblockable actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here longer. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Pppeery-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. Martinp (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a de facto one. This is a feature, not a bug. Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit

    Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2020 signups through Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting info

    Steve Quinn is trout trouted for bringing this to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:

    1. File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
    2. File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
    3. File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
    4. File:AppalachianTN.jpg
    5. File:Acplate.jpg

    Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.

    I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please Help Me!

    Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from Bhairava7 but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from 2 Factor Authication, so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through WP:ACC due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

     Confirmed to Bhairava7. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca@wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    @ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    BAG nomination

    Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    I need help from an admin - Urgent

    I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Dear Misplaced Pages Team,

    I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help.

    Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Relevant article:
    OP possibly using multiple accounts:
    DMacks (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    MohammedAlmughanni blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian

    fr.wiki is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. Lebronzejames999 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    EncycloDeterminate unblocked

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

    Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it is no longer necessary.

    For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EncycloDeterminate unblocked

    Permission request

    WP:LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    No. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for WP:AWB editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you CFA (AWB) (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Looks like we’ve got another @CFA impersonator here. If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try… TiggerJay (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I indeffed CFA (AWB) (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. Liz 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed community ban of Marginataen

    COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED This clearly fall sunder the except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours condition of WP:CBAN. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a long-term block on the wiki of their native language), and two days after their last unblock, they were blocked for a week for mass-changes to date formats without consensus, as discussed at ANI. Well they've gone back to more unwarranted mass-date format changes like this; their last hundred edits at the time of writing are a good sampler. Despite being explicitly told that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have continued to use topic similarity as a justification for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.

    They clearly have extreme "I didn't hear that" problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which introduced Manual of Style violations of their own. Furthermore, in the light of this AN discussion (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their creation of the spin-off article Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. Graham87 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    (Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.) Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. Northern Moonlight 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    20 more edits after the AN notice. Northern Moonlight 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. Økonom (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Per proposal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Don't waste the community's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: Tamborg, Bubfernr, and LatteDK. There may be others that I have missed. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but... Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently asked Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen responded: "Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates". And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to two more articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps going. Hopeless. Block. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support - Gotta play by the rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. Brandon (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:TWC DC1

    Warned, then sockblocked. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    G7 request by a blocked account

    G7'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 20 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 take a look at this? It appears to be a "db-author" request for Draft:Francesca Martí. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sapo.pt

    Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done The Bushranger One ping only 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proxy question

    I recently enabled the IP Info widget and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., (Redacted)). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at WP:OP. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Over on WP:OP we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO
    Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Undeletion + XML export request

    Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of Drum set tuning, use Special:Export, and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per b:WB:UT. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done; b:Special:Redirect/logid/5236509. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19

    Stray page deleted (non-admin closure) Mlkj (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Perhaps someone could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you The Bushranger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:BLPN closures

    2601AC47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deb Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    2 sections Deb Matthews and Ministry of Education (Ontario)(MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions.

    I have discussed with the user on User talk:2601AC47#Closures_on_WP:BLPN. The user refused to change the summaries. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    So much for cooperation... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. Liz 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per WP:BIT. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . Many editors have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system, but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. TiggerJay (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building.
    Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    So you're aware, per Misplaced Pages:Retiring § Pending sanctions, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have claimed to have retired previously, please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with policies and guidelines, especially as it related to handling disputes. TiggerJay (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with you, not the culture. Tarlby 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a second third n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
    We can enforce guidelines about civility, Legend of 14, but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. Liz 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.
    My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.
    Timeline of how this ended up here:
    • Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
    • Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
    • Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
    • Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.
    I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". User talk:2601AC47
    An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.
    I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605
    I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 User talk:Legend of 14#Preferred Pronouns User talk:Tiggerjay#January 2025
    I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be uncivil.
    But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays?

    For example, Hussein al-Khalil. In theory I think this could be deleted via WP:G5 for violating WP:ARBECR. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?

    Hmm, actually this is an article about a Hezbollah member, not a Hamas member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Archive bots

    This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    TonyTheTiger. Maybe you are thinking of meta:InternetArchiveBot#Using the bot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality.

    We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per WP:NOTFORUM (and, indeed, WP:BEANS). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    As observed here, Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated. — Masem (t) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? Silverseren 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
    My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against. — Masem (t) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ideas for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threat

    Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on User talk:Jack at BTCGPU. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Disruptive editor

    WP:BOOMERANG. Level 2 warning issued. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:The Green Star Collector has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. FactsheetPete (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale

    Crouch, Swale was blocked for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a site ban. In 2017 they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In December, Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ArbCom and after questioning on his talk page basically said he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. ToBeFree correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Oppose. There are too many missing dots here. Crouch, Swale's editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
    one account restriction
    topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
    prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
    prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
    That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
    They then went to appeal with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
    Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
    I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.
    Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.
      @Blue-Sonnet Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support the site ban that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. Sandstein 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    WMF research on admins

    There's a 70 page final report over at c:File:(Final Report) Administrator recruitment, retention, & attrition (SDS1.2.2).pdf. Apparently it will be part of something called the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Misplaced Pages Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi @Liz, hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also available on Meta-Wiki if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.
    On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! CLo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I like this line 1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured. That was my experience! Liz 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- Ponyo 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Move page Lien Khuong Airport

    Please help me move page Lien Khuong Airport to Lien Khuong International Airport (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was changed name (and upgraded) to an international airport since June 2024. Pk.over (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg

    Can an admin take a look at File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a WP:G7 request based on the last post added by the uploader to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2025 January 22#File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Topic ban appeal from User:Dronebogus

    I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. My reasons are as follows:

    1. The bans are both over a year old.
    2. I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
    3. The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
    4. I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.

    For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic