Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 03:31, 27 June 2006 view sourceJahiegel (talk | contribs)13,228 edits →[]: Tony's words← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:03, 9 January 2025 view source Ternera (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,496 edits →Permissions Removal: new sectionTag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
	<references/>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
			<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			|algo = old(7d)
	__TOC__
			|counter = 368
	== Tasks ==
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
			|maxarchivesize = 700K
	<div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;">
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	<br>
			|minthreadsleft = 0
	''], ] and ]''
			}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
	</div>
			{{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
			}}
			--><!--
			----------------------------------------------------------
	= General =
	<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->		New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
			----------------------------------------------------------
			--><noinclude>
			==Open tasks==
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
			{{Clear}}
			{{Admin tasks}}
			__TOC__
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	== Wiktionary user ==
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	'''''Note:''' ] came here as ] after being blocked indefinitely from Wiktionary for persistent and flagrant copyright violations and sockpuppetry. He continued his antics here and was eventually banned by Jimbo Wales, but he still lurks through the use of sockpuppets and open proxies. For more details see ].''
			{{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 ].
	The ] (apparently corresponding to ] here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for '''massive, systemic copyright violations.''' His primary sources were ''Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged'', by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and ''The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)'' (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)
			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 ].}}
	The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: ]. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
	For over a month now, he has used '''many''' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on ]. <small>Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page.</small> He has become ] single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated '''block of some 6,000+ IP addresses''' used by the ].
			I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
	His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.
			It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
	His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Misplaced Pages entry for ], where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Misplaced Pages just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.
			The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
	I hereby request assistance from '''''all''''' Misplaced Pages sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Misplaced Pages, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.
			I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
	--] 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page ].)
	:Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Misplaced Pages?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some ''content'' disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to ''Wiktionary,'' all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on ''Wiktionary'' which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though ''Wiktionary'' is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Misplaced Pages at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about ) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Misplaced Pages, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--] 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
	::::Thank you Primetime! I could not have ''asked'' for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
	::I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "]" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of ] . ] argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. ] had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -] 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie . Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary '''by the community''', for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of '''proven''' copyright violations. ] 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).
			:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
			::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See ]). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:<p>Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's ] as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Misplaced Pages users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.<p>Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See ].) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. '''Delete all.''' These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at ]." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus ''Sisyrinchium''), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: ]. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: ]. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for '''3 quotes''' and '''5 citations.''' Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.<p>As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: ], ] even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.<p>In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Misplaced Pages, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have on Misplaced Pages under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use '''Show preview''' and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Misplaced Pages policies, such as the ] and ] are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Misplaced Pages, this makes the site seem like it is ], and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or ''really bad'' enemies.--] 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Interestingly, that last bit and sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also . ], Primetime. ] 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: --I listed my user name in the comment column.--] 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?
			:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
	:A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take ], which you created with:
			See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	::''(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local ], he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell...''
			:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
			::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:We have the idiosyncratic, non-Misplaced Pages style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --] | ] 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <nowiki><http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=></nowiki>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--] 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Incivility at ] ==
	::::''I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.''' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like ''Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors'' as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,<sup></sup> as well as links.<sup></sup>--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -] 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
			:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
			:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
			:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
	:::::This article, ] , also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of ] as it includes extensive literary criticism. -] 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Now that's strange: that list of articles on on ]'s page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them . Why would that be? --] | ] 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
	:I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--] 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
			After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the '']'' -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up ]...Hmm, do these look familiar?
			{{abot}}
			== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
	:'''''Reinhard Johannes Sorge''' (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest ] dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. '' (from
			{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
	:''Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime.'' From the
			{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:
			=== Evidence ===
	Busted. --] | ] 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			1. – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.
			2.
	::OK. I admit that it's from the ''DLB''. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.
			3.
	:Another quick check: ] ( versus )...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --] | ] 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.
	::STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE '''NOT''' FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--] 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			4.
	::Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of ''Britannica'', ''Grove's'', ''DLB'', ''Current Biography'', etc. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			- After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.
			5.
	::A message on my talk page: ''...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Misplaced Pages isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this!'' This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we ''are'' aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.
			] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
	*Throw ] ( versus on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --] | ] 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
	===Update===
	{{User|Primetime}} has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself (see ). Note also that Primetime has resorted to sockpuppets to add back what's been deleted (see ]) and has gone admin-shopping (see ) seeking to reverse deletions of his additions. --] | ] 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
			=== Context ===
	:I see the category here on Misplaced Pages is redlinked. Today's latest English Wiktionary "Primetime" sockpuppet: ] (.) I hope Misplaced Pages is better at staying on top of these than we are at Wiktionary. --] 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
			- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.
			I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
	::Just a name change - I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads up. -] 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.
			] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
	:::There also is ], resulting from today's slander from Primetime? --] 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
			:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Renamed to ]. -- ] 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
			:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
			:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
			:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
			:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
			:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Increasing (desperate) personal . Does WP have a more appropriate place for ongoing, long-term vandalism of this sort? --] 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing '''my''' pages" ('''emphasis''' added). {{ping|NovembersHeartbeat}}, I would strongly advise that you read ], ], ], and ]. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to ] as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but ]. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. ] (]) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::] ] <small>]</small> 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
	::::: Thank you. In the meantime: {{vandal|Jhyt50}}. --] 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::: I've added ]. --] 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.
			However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
	It appears that Primetime used to be called {{user|Rickyboy}}, and was blocked indefinitely in July 2005. -] 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
	:From his ] ''Besides, even if they were violations of copyright law, they would still be justified because people shouldn't have to pay to learn things'' -- huh, exactly the nonsensical reasoning Primetime employs. --] | ] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Also ], of ] fame. In retrospect, that article was clearly plagiarized, and perhaps a copyright violation. -] 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Now confirmed- copied verbatim from World Book. -] 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
	:Ooh, lovely, . I blocked the Ricky accounts indefinitely, in case he had any designs on reusing them. ]·] 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			: This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I wonder if would like to know that they seem to be harboring a prolific plagarist? --] 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ]&thinsp;] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Emoji redirect ==
	::And in case it merits mentioning, Primetime has added my email address to a dozen or more spam sites, and has ordered junk mail to the home address of another editor. This fellow seems to believe in unrestricted combat. -] 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm suddenly glad I didn't respond to him through e-mail. --] | ] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	I left a "Be On the Lookout" warning on ], where his latest sockpuppet -- {{User|Ftym67}} -- was trying to convince the editors there that the OED is public-domain and A-Okay to copy from. Not that anyone there seemed to be buying it, but I thought a warning was in order. --] | ] 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Topic ban appeal ==
	:I'd appreciate it if Misplaced Pages admins would review/copyedit ] (the letter I will soon send to abuse@CSU) to verify I've not overstepped any inter-project boundaries. --] 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I did send this, about two hours ago. They seem to have begun their own investigation now. On another note: ] seem to have retained the copyvio material from the '']'' still, perhaps after a page move? --] 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Does anyone have sufficient Spanish-language skills to pursue this matter on Es.Misplaced Pages? He's known there as "". I found one instance of plagiarism/copying (from Grolier's Spanish edition). However a user named "Mahadeva" is reverting - he may be a sock or just a clueless editor. Any help would be apprecieted. Gracias, -] 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
			::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
			*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
			*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
			*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
	Clearly a Sock, Principal Tiempo means Primetime in english. Thanks ] ] 07:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	The spanish wikipedia is dealing with it. Thanks ] ] 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Andra Febrian report ==
	So many people that I have bad feelings about turn out to be trolls, strange...maybe all the hours spend here are making me hyper-perceptive :).''']''' 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
			"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
			- caused many edit wars <br/>
			- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
			- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
			- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
			I request that the user is warned.
			] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
	Blocked in the spanish wikipedia indef by ] who discovered two copyvios. Thanks ] ] 07:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
			:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
			'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
			'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
			'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
			'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
			<br/>
			I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
			:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
	Currently using <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>. --] 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Blocked. --] 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
			There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Sock blocked -- ] 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Cannot draftify page ==
	::This is worth noting:
			{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::*''It doesn't matter, though, because you cannot win. I have learned how to automate much of my copying and formatting of text. Soon, I will make Misplaced Pages larger than your wildest imaginations.--Primetime 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)''
			I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It sounds like he has plans for more mischief. -] 09:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
			:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Remove PCR flag ==
	Perhaps you can get Daniel Brandt to reveal the guy causing this trouble, then (possily even legal) action can be taken appropriately.
			{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:''Unsigned comment 03:13, June 14, 2006''
			Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== "The Testifier" report ==
	*Couldn't one of Misplaced Pages's find and perma-block each of the open proxies he is using to create new accounts? --] 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	**On it, see ]. --] 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
			== Problem with creating user talk page ==
	] is unprotected now, but nothing in the past 2 days... Maybe the range blocks are working. --] 14:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:perhaps this ] (] • ] • <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>) is him back ? - ] ] 11:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
			| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Blocked indef. Hmm, wasn't there another section here before? --] 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			}}
	:::There still is. (The section before this one.) Just that it's now refactored into one paragraph. ] 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Why is this material being removed? ===
			:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	I was wondering why half of the article "]" is being blanked? There are pictures on the talk page showing that the material is from a publication in the public domain and it was cited. Further, the material was added before any block was imposed on the author. The people removing the content have refused to explain why they are doing so. They just say, "reverting probable Primetime sockpuppet," or "reverting edits . . ." as if that makes it OK. {{Unsigned|Plant2j| 01:28, 21 June 21 2006}}
			::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The above was posted by a Primetime sockpuppet... ''']''' ]|] 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Sigh. Add {{Vandal|Djf2006}} to the list. --] | ] 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)		:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::And {{vandal|Tyrn5}} --] 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Wait, someone already said that. I need sleep. --] 05:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)		:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
	== Santa's reindeer ==
			] from the past month (December 2024).
	I have no idea where to take this, so I'm trying here. A user ] an individual page for each of Santa's reindeer. Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. I was thinking NN until I realized that they really are notable. Chances are more people have heard of ] than ]. The question is - do they really deserve individual pages? --] 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	::I don't know how encyclopedic it is, but i'm seriously about to fall out of my chair laughing at the sheer number of edits this person has done on the subject, its REALLY funny. I would say that you should group them together and take them to AFD for discussion there. ] 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	:::The reason there are so many edits is because I am new to editing not because I am crazy about reindeer. This is like a test project for me to see how far my editing skills can go. --] 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	:::The more I think about it, the more I think they are notable. The question is whether they really deserve seperate articles or not. I'm gonna send a message to the creator essentially asking him if he actually has enough info to warrant seperate articles, but to be frank our standards for encyclopedic in nature have dropped so much over the last year or so that my eventualist tendencies are saying we should keep them. --] 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] ]
			</div>
	Filling wikipedia with one liner articles like these, and also on ] is really a bad idea. All these info could easily be summarized in articles like "Santa's reindeers", ]. I really can't see how it is possible, without doing originalr research, to create a non-stub article on each of the reindeers, and each of US presidential pets. Merging them all into a single article on each topic should be done. Thanks. --] 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''Oversight changes'''
	Here's my thoughts. I realize how it might be more essential to merge the pages, but I would like until the 14th to try to find enought information on them to make them more than stubs and to make them separate enough from each other. If I cannot accomplish that, then yes, merging will be required. Can you grant me that time?
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	--] 10:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			</div>
	:As the great MTV Celebrity Death Match Referee/Judge ] would say "I'll allow it." ] 03:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
			</div>
	::Ok. Thanks for allowing me this time. Now I just have to take the information I have and work it into articles to see if it looks good. If it does I'll post it and you can see what you think. If it doesn't look good to me or you we can merge the articles. --] 10:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'd like to butt in here and congratulate Merond e for being a civil editor. Good job. ~] ] 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	===Initial review===
	We have an ongoing problem with articles related to the Balkans, and some users from the Balkans. Details of problems with ] are ] and ], and I've just blocked ] for a month, because of . That might seem over the top, but it's the , and part of a pattern of extreme pro-Serbian POV pushing from that particular user, and abuse of anyone who objects to it, or tries to deal with troublesome editors. I've also removed various "userboxes" from C-c-c-c's page, which promote various Serbian nationalist positions (including a huge one saying "Kosovo is Serbia" - for British editors, think of a huge box with a union jack in it, saying "Londonderry is British"). I'd welcome other admins looking at the situation, and comments on the possibility of a community ban for this user. I am not, before anyone starts, an Albanian. I have no strongly held opinions on any of the various Balkan nations. --] (]) 09:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:His username is also the acronym for a <s>fascist</s> nationalist slogan. - ] ] 09:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava, "Only unity can save the Serbs" - ] ] 09:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: As for the slogan, it ''is'' nationalist, but not ''that'' nationalist. It is central part of official coat of arms of Serbia, as can be seen ] (central part contains 4 ]es). Apart from that, I support Andrews actions fully. But I must warn everybody to act with extreme caution not to act like whole Serbian nation is fascist. We must focus on radical editors which disrupt Misplaced Pages with their actions. Regartless if they are Serbians, Albanians or Croatians. I do feel User:C-c-c-c is overy radical and should be delt with, but "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava" is not the problem (for British editors, think of "God Save the Queen" ;-) ). {{unsigned|Dijxtra|13:46, 12 June 2006}}
	::::And we all know the ].... :)) - ] ] 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I agree with Dijxtra. I am not for one moment suggesting that the whole Serbian nation supports this sort of extremism, or that Serbs are the only people who are editing Misplaced Pages to promote an extreme nationalist point of view. --] (]) 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This has actually gone a bit too far... Even his unblock request was removed. He has been "good" lately, he wasn't even being nationalist at all. And I don't even know why anyone at all brings up extremism, when that's not the case. It seems as though this was a personal attack aimed at him. And now he is blocked indefinitely. Congrats. --] ] 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	===Community ban===
	* In regard of your suggestion of a community ban, I support such an idea. - ] ] 11:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	* I concur. --] 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Me three. We really have sort of a war starting on Misplaced Pages, and I don't see much (or any) good faith coming from this user. We don't need users who, despite trying to reason with them, only come to wikipedia to push their POV and use it as a cheap political BBS. --] 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Concur, there are a lot of editors making a battlefield out of our Serbia pages and blocking him would be a good start towards solving that problem. ] <small>]</small> 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	* I don't know if I can vote, but I agree. He made battlefield (in ] cooperation with ]) of some croatian pages too (althoug not recently). I'm ready to help reduce vandalism on Serbian pages, if needed, but I hope we can deal with anti-croatian vandals afterwords. --] 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	* I object to a permanent ban and would suggest instead a probationary period with a self-imposed block on any Croatian-related articles. Though I cannot condone ]'s reaction and personal attack on ], I believe that a last chance should be given to this user. I would also like to remind you that there are many other users editing Balkan subjects with a far worse civility problem (eg. ], who threatened to kill ]'s family amongst other things, including systematic sockpuppetry) and have been still left off easily. Regarding the nationalist userboxes, me and another wikipedian have indeed brought to ]'s attention that this is a sadly very common problem. All I can just say that ]'s are certainly not the only ones out there. Maybe, linking the permanent removal of these userboxes to a probation could be a constructive solution. Best regards, --]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Would support an indef ban on ], I don't understand why he was unbanned. Regarding nationalist userboxes, get community endorsement then ]! :) - ] ] 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::The trouble with that would be that a "self-imposed block on any Croatian-related articles" would mean a ban. He has hardly ever edited any article unrelated to the Balkans, apart from requests for people to do his Physics homework. That, to me, is one of the chief signs that he's here with an agenda (he is, lest we forget, a Canadian). Interiot's tool says he has 110 edits to articles, 105 to article talk, 431 to user/user talk, and 110 to the Misplaced Pages namespace. Again, not an indication to me that he's here for the right reasons - if he wants to chat to people, he can use IRC. --] (]) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	*"Community bans" are not, despite repeated attempts by some people, imposed by a few of the more brutal admins putting their hand up and shouting "ban", "ban", "ban", and the section by then being 10 from the bottom and ignored. They grow from the fact that, once an editor is indefinitely blocked and (presumably) appeals said block that "not one of the 915 administrators is prepared to unblock them". Generally, this manifests itself as a series of escalating blocks that do not teach the necessary lessons and the exhaustion of patience comes when it becomes clear that no length of block will remove the problem and no admin thinks the problem is either curable or live-with-able. They need not ''necessarily'' do so: some editors are removed and noone cares (or even notices), but clearly that's not the case in this type of situation. A community ban of this present kind does not spring forth fully formed; it comes into being when it turns out there is nothing else for there to be. They are sociological constructs borne of a fading hope of anything ever getting better, not the rejected ]s that these kinds of requests quite distinctly are. -] - ] 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	**I agree with your definition of "community ban". If anyone wants to unblock him with probation, per Asterion's suggestion, I won't be troubled. ] <small>]</small> 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	** He is not, at the moment, community-banned. I <s>banned</s> blocked him for a month, as a result of a series of <s>bans</s> blocks by different admins for exactly the same behaviour (abuse, disruption, sockpuppetry, trolling, etc). There are various opinions about the method for community-banning, the ArbCom has ducked out of ruling on how to interpret the conflicting policies, and I feel the best way is to establish consensus here prior to a ban. I'm satisfied there's no such consensus. --] (]) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	***No, you ''blocked'' him for a month. There is a key difference. A block is technical, a ban is sociological. A ban is implemented with a block. -] - ] 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	****My mistake. --] (]) 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I agree with Asterion - there should be a probation period. I might add to his note on ], that he would've been blocked eternally long ago if this case was used... (by the way, could someone assess him?) --] 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	** I'll be looking into one or two of the other names suggested to me, when I have the time. --] (]) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	**If you want to impose probation on an unwilling victim, you cannot reasonably expect them to abide by it. Admins have no binding authority, and 'defying' an admin's fairly arbitrary decision is hardly grounds for a block, thus enforcing such decisions basically not possible. You need ArbCom if you want to restrict an editors editing without actually having them banned by acclamation. -] - ] 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I am aware of that. This is why I asked for a self-block on Croatian-related articles. This will show whether C-c-c-c is truly willing to make an effort and will help him to gain experience on other areas. Obviously, it is not enforceable but it would be obvious there is a problem if he goes on edit-warring immediately after the block is lifted. That would be classed as disruption. Whatever is decided here, someone would need to inform the user or discuss the issue as, being currently blocked, he would be unable to comment here. Regards, --]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	***What can be done, however, is to insist on strict adherence to policy. There is normally a certain amount of latitude in behaviour given to anyone here, and if that latitude has been abused, what admins ''can'' do is insist that people behave absolutely according to the rules, and to back that up with protections and/or blocks, until the message sinks in. Admins ''do'' effectively have binding authority, if they are not behaving so egregiously that another admin objects. That's not the way I'd prefer things to be - I'd like clearer, quicker and more democratic processes for dealing with this sort of thing - but that's the way it is. --] (]) 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	If there is a serious problem with this guy's edits, but no consensus for a community ban, try ]. --] 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	: If we would go for an arbitration, I think we should go with one very broad case. Include other problematic Croatian, Kosovar and Serbian editors (most notably already mentioned ], but i could think of 3-4 other names). And get rid of disruptive forms of radical and extremist nationalism, if ArbCom feels there are grounds for that. Just a thought. --] 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I would support that too. --]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Agree. - ] ] 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	::If I can add my opinion, I feel it would be a great idea. It seems clear that much of the worst damage is being done by a few editors, and their editing should be brought before the ArbCom.--] 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'd be thinking of something even broader - a policy, rather than an ArbCom case, along the lines of preventing people from expressing ''opinions'' on any political/religious/ethnic/national group, or advocating or opposing independence for particular geographical areas or people. Identifying yourself as a member of a particular nationality or ethnic group is fair enough (not my taste, but I accept that other people want to do it and it isn't too harmful), but anything beyond that has nothing to do with creating an encyclopaedia, it's just about winding other people up. I'll think about putting together a first attempt at a policy proposal, if nobody else does in the meantime (I'm going to be very busy for a few days), and hopefully we can then ]. Jimbo has expressed similar sentiments on the mailing list , so there may be support from that quarter. --] (]) 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Hm, not sure this would work. What exactly would you ban? Reverting the things you don't like? I think that's already not allowed. "Nationalist propaganda"? Well, I don't see how any kind of propaganda can be incorporated into Misplaced Pages by following current rules since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and you do not get to put propaganda in it since it is, well, unencyclopedic... or at least you are not supposed to (see for instance). --] <small>I don't know how come I forget to sign only on WP:AN</small>
	:Well, I think that ] is pretty clear about this point as it already stands. The thing is more complicated with another kind of POV pushing wikipedians who, though being civil, are clearly trying to promote their own agenda (even if some of them genuinely don't realise their POV is blurring their vision). Where do you set the limit on specialisation on a particular subject and POV-pushing is a tricky business, as we all know. In that sense, I did actually think a while back about putting together some sort of "Code of Practice" for users engaged on this sort of controversial issues but I could not figure out how to start it. I would appreciate any comments on this (I have no problem proposing this to Esperanza and/or Concordia people too). On a separate issue, it seems C-c-c has written an <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> notice. Any admin willing to take action?--]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I added {{tl|indefblocked}} to his user page. ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I want to make clear that I am still against a community ban against this user unless any real action is taken to solve the wider problem. There have been at least two other opinions against this ban. I believe it was rushed through in just a few hours. I cannot consider this consensus. --]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
	===The wider problem===
	I agree entirely with Andrew that we have a wider problem across a range of Balkans-related articles. There are a number of other problematic users - ] (Croatian), ] (Serbian) and ] (Greek) come to mind - who act without any regard for Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies (], ], ], ] etc). I've taken action on a number of disputed Croatian articles, such as ] and ], to enforce those policies. I posted a message to the talk pages of those articles and others reminding people of the following:
	:* Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).
	:* Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).
	:* Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on personal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR).
	I reverted any changes, pro- or anti-, that didn't meet these standards, and explained to the users in question why I'd done so. In one instance (that of ]) this resulted in personal abuse and the deliberate copying-and-pasting into the article of large chunks of plagiarised text; I blocked the user in question. (He has since departed the English Misplaced Pages although, I think disgracefully, he is still an administrator on the Serbian Misplaced Pages.)
	I think there's more than one category of user in question here, though. The first is the hopeless cases - the people who are only interested in POV-pushing, don't make any useful contributions and have no interest at all in NPOV, RS etc. ] falls into this category - I don't think he's ''ever'' made a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, and we wouldn't lose anything by banning him or his ilk. (Check out his contributions - you'll see what I mean.)
	The second is the bad-faith cases - people who are strong POV-pushers and try to subvert or sneakily ignore NPOV, but who do make some useful contributions to other articles. ] is a good example of this, as is ]. They've both made some good edits, as well as some very bad edits. There is a judgment call to be made here: do such users' positive contributions outweight the damage they do elsewhere?
	The third category is the users who honestly don't know better. I've found that explaining Misplaced Pages's rules on their talk pages can have a positive effect here, and I strongly recommend this course of action. If they ignore your advice then I think you would have good cause to start warning them and building up to blocking them if they don't change their ways. -- ] 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
	===Shared IP?===
	I don't know the nitty gritty technical deatils, but it appears I was blocked because this user was a vandal. My ISP in Canada is shaw, and I've been told they use a shared IP proxy. Therefore, blocking ] for long periods of time is going to prevent a lot of people from editing! --]] 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
	===Community ban review===
	C-c-c-c has put up an unblock tag with an apology for a personal attack.
	I raise this here for formal review.
	My own opinion is that, due to his history, the community should not waste further time on this editor. --] 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This user has apologised and requested a second chance. Considering this has been granted before to users exponentially more disruptive than c-c-c-c, I believe it would be the right thing to do. I am also unhappy with the community ban process. This was rushed through in a few hours time (''there was no need to speed up process as C-c-c-c was already blocked at the time''). At least two other bona fide users have expressed their concerns regarding a community ban. Regards, --]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Please see ] and ]. When ] gets back to me, I'll be making a RFCU request to clarify who is pretending to be whom. --] (]) 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::As far as I know, someone requested this before and the checkuser concluded that C-c-c-c is not Bormalagurski as you seem to imply on the former's talk page. --]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	== PinchasC Abuses Adminstrative Priveleges ==
	''Removed copy/paste of semi protection policy by ]. For relevant discussion of the poster's complaint, see ] below. ] 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)''
	== Personal attacks by user Pantherarosa ==
	I posted the issue on the backloged WP:PAIN but it became a cluttered mess that gave no result. Instead of getting into a detailed explaination, below are the personal attacks made by Pantherarosa even though (s)he had been warned numerous times to stop. I think they speak for themselves:
	and
	Keep in mind these were being made after ] had been warned numerous times to stop. ] 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Hello? ] 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	Pantherarosa also is vandalising my user page and using misleading edit summaries: ] 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:YOU are spreading lies and libel as for quite a while about me. On your user-page i have taken the LIBERTY to correct a spelling mistake (your mistake: "indefinate"/my correction: indefinite), ironically at the same TIME STAMP instant as you have subsequently changed your previous MISSPELLED posting. You are welcome to take off your erroneous accusation and my clarification, here.] 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::"Correcting" another user's spelling mistakes, when you are in dispute with them, could be considered as harrassment. Why not just not edit his page? ]|] 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::No, you reverted the page back serveral revisions and changed the spelling. Thereby removing another user's comments and reverting my edits, since the prior revision I had changed "indefinite" to "a month". Given your previous actions, I think it's safe to say you were screwing around with my page and passing it off as an innocent edit. Why else would you had reverted back several revisions instead of just editing the word? In addition, your edit was over 2 hours after mine. That is not at the same instant. ] 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Paul is right. is not a spelling correction. ]|] 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I made one single entry and did not REVERT at all, there may have been a timelag though between making the correction and SAVE PAGE action. So no need to spread further libel. The User Zoe's observation is not applying, as I am the one who suffered harrassment, as can be easily backtracked!] 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Setting the page back to a previous state is reverting. Given your previous statements, I think you are lying when you expect us to believe you waited over two hours to save your edits. As for Zoe's comments, all user's comments apply; it's one of the founding principles of Misplaced Pages. ] 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::If Zoe's comment applies, than certainly in your regard: YOU have, in fact, repeatedly applied yourself to reverting and "editing" my Talk page. The last time a few minutes ago...] 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I reached your miss-spelled entry over my page watch and it has been your last entry, at the time I chanced upon it. All i did was change the spelling, so don't construe anything! Why would I in my right mind REVERT senslessly and sign with my good name??? That would constitute vandalism.] 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Editing talk pages in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines is not harrassment. I doubt you'll find an admin who'll object to me removing personal attacks against me from an indefinitely banned user. As for you editing my page when I was the last editor, what you said is impossible as it would have resulted in an edit conflict warning preventing you from accidentally overwritting what had been written. ] 02:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Reconstructing the events, I agree that, in fact, THERE HAS BEEN an editing conflict warning (in connection with "show preview"), which i did not attribute to an edit concerning this matter, after a considerable break in editing, having done other work for more than 2 hours. I understood only after your verbose accusations that the said SAVE PAGE action had obviously triggered then only (I presume admin can ascertain this in due course). I do not accept your renewed false accusations, especially not in light of your continuous attempts at defaming me. It was due to the fact that i found you on my watchlist today (and reading your contributions log) that I came to know about your relentless bickering on this board and your userpage. My spelling correction was meant as a reminder for you to see I am on top of your pranks. My first impression regarding "same instance" editing was based on comparing your TIME STAMP before and after my edit, which shows the same time. In any event: Say what you want; I merely attempted to correct your spelling of the word indefinite. The ensuing mishap has not been my intention.] 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Except the fact you can't accidentally overwrite suceeding edits in an edit conflict without cutting and pasting your edits from the bottom text box to the top. So either you did it on purpose or you just intentionally bypassed warning messages without looking at what they said. As for ''your relentless bickering on this board and your userpage'' and ''I am on top of your pranks'', those aren't personal attacks, but they definately violated ]. ]
	::::::::::Stop editing my comments as you did here: ] if I make spelling mistakes then it's for me to correct. As Zoe said ''"Correcting" another user's spelling mistakes, when you are in dispute with them, could be considered as harrassment.'' Doing it after being told not to is harrassment. ] 03:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Pantherarosa, I see this as a simple question of whether you realise that your comments could be understood as demeaning and/or a personal attack. Whatever Paul Cyr's age is, it does not mean you should make fun of it. You may be right or wrong about the edit conflict (I had a problem with overwriting newer versions by mistake myself) but that does not excuse the language you have been using to refer to another member of the wikipedia community. Regards, --]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Especially when in 10 days I am legally an adult. Hardly a "schoolboy" ;) ] 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Well then, "'' '''Happy Birthday!'' '''" ] 09:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== AFD backlog ==
	There's 5 days of AFD pages backlogged at the moment. People seem to close the easy ones, then skip over any that involve a modicum of effort (such as merging, or transwiki-ing). I'm wading through ] at the moment, but I can't close AFDs I've already been involved in, which is most of them. Help would be appreciated. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 13:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I have no problems with closing contentious or tough AfDs, and I very rarely "skip" an AfD, but I simply don't have the continuous time it takes to close 50+ AfDs in succession. Usually when I see the AfDs for a particular day drop down to around 20 or 30, that's when I'll get cracking on closing the rest of them, so it would be great if we have a lot of volunteers just close a few to bring it down to this level. --] ] 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I've just closed a couple and will try to find some time to close a few more tomorrow. ] 15:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: Out of interest, how other admins deal with merge results? As it's basically a keep, do you just declare it as keep, declare as keep but also add merge tags on or what? Just out of interest as I've done very little AFD work (and not really been around there much recently), but would be useful to know as this as it seems to be the number 1 reason for non-closure of the older AFD's. ] 18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: As you prefer. Personally, if I think the result is merge I say so. If I can execute the merge, I do, if I don't feel qualified I don't, note that fact on the AfD and add merge tags as needed. -] - ] 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I also tend to find merge results hard to deal with. Usually merging requires some expertise in the subject matter, and if I have significant expertise in the subject matter I tend to vote on the AfD rather than closing it. So for me, it's generally merge tags. I think that's about all that can be expected of the closing admin. ] 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	(shift left) If there are several merge and keep votes together, I usually just close the AfD as a '''Keep''' or '''Not delete''', and close the article as per a '''keep''' result, making a note that Keep vs. Merge debates can be handled out of AfD. For merge results, I usually try to do the merge myself, but if the subject matter is too difficult, the work required is extensive, or if I'm simply too lazy (that happens on occasion), I just apply the merge tags to the AfDed article and the target article. I make sure to pass, as the second parameter, the proper talk page to discuss the merge (the talk page of the AfDed article is most appropriate, I think).
	For example: <nowiki>{{mergeto|Target article|Talk:AfDed article}} and {{mergefrom|AfDed article|Talk:AfDed article}}</nowiki>. That's just how I do it, I don't know how other AfD closers do it. --] ] 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd like to add my voice to get some AFDs closed. I noticed people relisting AFDs that were 9 days old yesterday and a few AFDs I'm involved in have surpassed their 5 day point and still haven't been closed. --] 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, it was very dicey before, and I saw about four or five days worth of AfDs listed in ] at one time. We're down to two days, so maybe things are better. I'd still like to see some folks willing to bring it down to about 20 AfDs. I don't have any more continuous time to devote to closing AfDs today... --] ] 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Hrm. I'm not sure about that. I've got outstanding AFDs that are older than the 12th still sitting around. --] 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Which outstanding AfDs are you talking about? According to the Mathbot, when it processed ], all the ones listed prior to June 12 were closed. Perhaps these AfDs are orphaned? --] ] 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::: I've just closed off June 12. There was one mathbot picked up but that had been archived into page history for privacy reasons. As Deathphoenix says if any are still open, please let us know as they don't (obviously) show up on the listings. ] 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:These AFDs are still open: ] ] that one is from the 9th. Here is another from the 9th ]. I'll keep looking as I know there were some relisted yesterday that weren't on my watchlist. --] 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:] This is also from the 9th it appears. --] 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::They are all relisted, which is a legitimate option. They will be closed next time around. ] 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Relisting restarts the 5 day counter? I thought relisting just made sure you were able to reach a concensus by giving it exposure and didn't extend the length of the actual discussion? --] 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::It basically restarts the counter, as they are placed on the same page as the other 'brand new' AFD nominations. However, they can get closed in less than the extra five says if consensus becomes clear. The exposure happens by being put back on the 'front page' and having the length of discussion extended. ] 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:] this one is from the 10th and hasn't been relisted. --] 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Not sure why, but this one is listed in June 17. Likely, it was either orphaned when first nominated (then listed on June 17) or it was relisted June 17 without having the relist notice up. Either way, it'll be closed in time. Despite the fact that having that AfD notice up on an article can be stressful, these things get closed in time, and there's no harm in having it up for a little longer, especially when you consider how overworked some of our AfD closers are. --] ] 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Its not a matter of stress per se. Just closing the AFD in time to ensure a proper process. When it comes to deleting someone's work, or keeping something controversial, I think the process has to be transparent, and abnormally long AFDs and other things can lead to people questioning that process. --] 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Oh, I agree. Unfortunately, AfD closers are volunteers. Just earlier, I closed an AfD that took me almost thirty minutes to complete. And there are tonnes of AfDs to close. In an ideal world, AfD closers would swoop in and close all the AfDs within the space of twelve hours after they have expired. Unfortunately, they are not. In addition, proper process doesn't actually give a maximum time limit into when an AfD has to be closed. It only says that AfDs ''may'' be closed after five days, but may sit in the back log for several more days.
	::::But in any case, you have a valid complaint. AfDs can sometimes sit in a backlog for a while. Perhaps you'd like to help control the backlog by helping us close AfDs? If you're not an admin, but still want to help clear our AfD backlog, take a look at ] to see how you can help. Thanks, ] ] 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks Deathphoenix, I'll have a look at that. I'm not an admin currently, but if I can close unanimous keeps then that might help when I come across them. I'll go through and read the proper process. Is there anything in particular I should tag the closing with to indicate I'm not an admin when doing so? --] 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::No, there's no need to do so. Just remember that you can only close AfDs that are very unanimously a Keep (or Merge, or Redirect). A good rule of thumb (someone else could correct me if they wish) would be at least four Keeps (or Merges, or Redirects), and maybe 90% consensus. Anything else might be a little too contentious for anyone but an admin to close. --] ] 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::That sounds pretty reasonable. I'll see what I can do to contribute. --] 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Wonderful. Thanks. :-) --] ] 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::I started closing AfDs (as a non-admin), but found that I was scrolling through the whole lot searching for near-unanimous keeps and not finding many. There were others where I would have closed and made a decision, but didn't want to overstep the mark. I understand in the past there was more leeway for non-admins closing with "no consensus" or whatever. If this were approved, it would share the workload (and non-admin closures are subject to review anyway as a safeguard).
	:::::::::On the subject of difficult merges after an AfD, would it be an acceptable solution to change the article into a redirect to the second article, and paste the contents of the first article on the talk page of the second article, making it clear that this was material from the first article that needed to be merged? The editing history would of course still be preserved with the first article.
	:::::::::] 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Well, if you see any obvious delete closures, I wouldn't see anything wrong with closing it as delete then putting <tt>&#123;&#123;db&#124;closed &#91;&#91;Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/&#123;&#123;PAGENAME&#125;&#125;&#93;&#93; as delete. &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;&#125;&#125;</tt> or somesuch. Other users might disagree, saying it's a slippery slope, but I think boldness would be appropriate in times of massive backlog. — <small>Jun. 24, '06</small><tt> ''' <<u class=plainlinks>|</u>>'''</tt>
	:::::::::That's for speedy delete, but most articles for deletion don't meet speedy criteria, which is why they're put on AfD in the first place, so that tag would be misleading. Non-admins can't complete the process, even if there is a (near-)unanimous consensus for delete. However, they could close "no consensus, keep" AfDs. ] 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Not sure non-admins should be closing close (i.e. no consensus) keeps. I don't have too much problem with them closing obvious deletes and than tagging with db|(afd link), but that wouldn't really save admins any work as they would still have to check the afd was valid etc as it is the deleting admin that has to 'take the blame' in case of future questions. Closing clear delete afd's hardly takes any time at all anyway. ] 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Yes, that's what I thought! ] 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Image undeletion now possible ==
	All hail the devs, for . -] - ] 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	:NO!! It was better without this function :'(. ''']''']|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
	::How so? Images as anything else should not be undeleted without good reason, and if there is good reason this is defenently better than tracking down the image and re-uploading. Hopefully this will also reduce some of the "drama" about people crying bloody murder if one of theyr self created images gets deleted for lacking copyright info while they where away on vacation for a week. ] might see a surge of "frivelous" undelete requets for a while (omg! that was a gr8 pic unletele plz!11", but I'll sure we'll manage. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think this is a bad idea for copyright violation pictures. Nothing too significant though. I am guessing this applies for images after June 2006. -- '']'' 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Well obviously. I would tink that goes without saying. Any and all votes to overturn a copyvio deketion should be ignored unless a persuasive fair use argument or proof of a free license release can be provided, but AFAIK this have not been a problem with copyright infrindging text, so I don't think it copyvios getting undeleted will be a huge problem with images either. And yes, only images deleted after the feature was implemented (June 16) can actualy be undeleted). --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	I won't be happy until it is possible to move/rename images (and redirect them to avoid the need for duplicates in template contexts). It would be nice to do something about bloody fuck obnoxious non-descriptive image titles such ]. — <small>Jun. 20, '06</small><tt> ''' <<u class=plainlinks>|</u>>'''</tt>
	:If the filename is a ], then the image is probably a copyvio ripped from the web somewhere, and should be shot on sight. --] 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I totally second Freakofnurture. And if the filename is a GUID, then it could be fair use too, no? ~] ] 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Athough a hilarious username, it violates ] (''Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body''). The user is also . (Also, if this is the wrong page to be reporting this, please let me know...) -- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	User already has been blocked: 10:43, 18 June 2006 Malcolm Farmer blocked "Yuck, my balls smell like raw sewage (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate username, vandalism) ] 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:<strike>Thanks. Got another one for you: {{vandal|You're all queers}} -- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)</strike> Nevermind, already blocked. -- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:That name is pathetic. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I'm guessing most native English speakers will understand the reference (and, admittedly, it's humorous), yet this may have been altered enough to let stand per ]. No contribs as I type this. Thoughts? <tt style="color: #161;">RadioKirk (]|]|])</tt> 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Username block, most certainly. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Not certainly enough for you to do it, apparently ;-). I've blocked the account. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::That really seems like overkill. It's not likely to be mistaken for the actual religious figure, which was your stated reason for blocking, and it's not so offensive as to be ''de facto'' worth blocking pre-emptively in my opinion. -- ] <i><sub>]</sub></i> 12:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, I'm leaning away from the block&mdash;barely, but leaning away. As written, this could be to whom you might pray for decent food at ]... ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 13:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This user never complained or contributed, so it may have been the right call after all. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 04:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Spicynugget==
	] has been adding spam links to ]. After consensus on the talk page has shown that there should not be spam links there, ip addresses from the same isp have been adding those links those ip's have also been editing the same articles that ] has been editing. These ip's have violated the 3rr rule. There is no checkuser result to prove that they are the same person as checkuser are only done for more extreme cases (so I have been told when requesting the checkuser ). Therefore based upon the above I have blocked ] and his most recent ip for 24 hours for the 3rr violation. --] | ] 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	: is now making edits that fit ] pattern.--] 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Block extended to a week for evading block. --] | ] 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	I've put in a ], because this has been an ongoing problem, with 31 spam edits in the last month, including six today, from not only username SpicyNugget, but also from 8 other IP addresses. See my report on the investigation request page for details. ] (]/]) 12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I have blocked three of the IPs for activity today: {{vandal|68.30.30.12}} (vandalised my user page), {{vandal|70.8.87.34}}(5RR on Prayer) and {{vandal|68.30.202.138}} (removed afd notice from ]. Now {{Vandal|70.8.99.43}} is cheerfully spamming my talk page (]). I have to go offline, anyone who wants to take over, please feel free to do so. All the IPs resolve to Sprint Reston VA, btw. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	=== KillerChihuahua ===
	Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made while preventing vandalism of the page. There are some situations in which it should not be applied. It is:
	* not to be used to deal with regular content disputes. See the protection policy for how to deal with this;
	* not intended for pre-emptive protection with the exception of some biographies of living people
	* not for the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected;
	* not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general.
	Article-talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User-talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request.
	Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort. Remember to lift the semi-protection after a brief period if appropriate.
	I demand that you unprotect the ] links page and unblock any affected users or I will be forced to begin a campaign requesting removal of your administration status.] 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	I was also offended that you view Misplaced Pages as a place for redistributing the world's knowledge according to your POV. You state on your user page:
	"Judaism at 14.5 million is less than 1% of the world population.
	Please help with correcting this bias by adding religious views as appropriate."
	If Misplaced Pages truly is a platform for the world to exchange the best ideas, then the more dominant, livable, and realistic philosophies will surface. Please remove your destructive comments for they are inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's progressive philosophy of education.] 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:KC didn't protect ], and it has in any event been protected appropriately. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:''ec''In case anyone is curious, it was actually {{admin|Petros471}} who protected ] due to ]. ] 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Quick edit to state that my Soapbox is being quoted out of context. Please see my user page; where the full content can be viewed. This was the basis for the WP:BIAS section on religion. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== User claiming his contributions aren't GFDL, veiled legal threats. ==
	] has stated this his contributions to "music-related topics" are not under the GFDL and claims that he's going to remove them, telling people not to revert . This isn't a possibility of the GFDL.
	On being told this, he makes thinly veiled threats of legal action as a means to an end on his statement: (note that theres heavy comment reformatting in the first link; the second one also includes some comments being moved and theres been serious refactoring of text but not threat or tone since).
	He also, strangely, threatens to "destroy" Misplaced Pages and Google. , although I'm not sure whats meant by that.
	Theres also quite serious ] and ] breaches as well as quite constant accusations that people are "pretending" to be someone else when he believes they are in fact related to him, work for his ISP, live in Italy and a whole host of other apparent things the Misplaced Pages userbase is covering up... --] 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	: is him actually removing content under his claims that he's not licenced it under the GFDL. --] 13:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I've indef blocked with the reason "legal threats, personal attacks, threats to 'destroy Misplaced Pages'". The diffs above and seem to be reason enough for me. Others please review. ] 13:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	GFDL, once granted, cannot be revoked. In addition, no matter what one may claim, making a contribution to Misplaced Pages constitutes an agreement to grant GFDL rights to those edits, so Brian's GFDL revocation is invalid. As for threatening to bring down Misplaced Pages, that might be grounds for an indef block, yes, but I'm more interested in knowing ''why'' Brian's feeling this way. Did he get involved in a dispute with someone? I'm more interested in trying to resolve this dispute that's making him feel this way in the first place. --] ] 14:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:He got involved in disputes with lots of people (I'm one of the people he doesn't like for example). To be short: He has HIS own idea about musical genres, and he strongly dislike modern electronic dance music (see ]). (I don't either, but that's no reason to push away and steer this articles in a way that suits your POV) Moreover, he doesn't like the term "electronic" music being used, except for his own strict definitions. His definitions aren't that wrong, he's just too narrow-minded regarding the subject and he fails to accept that thousands and thousand of people are using the english language, give names to genres and that music evolves, so his strict definitions are the single real "truth". Since a few weeks/months, he has gradually been reshaping articles to his ideas. He has been reverted many times. People tried to talk with him... some tried really hard... eg see ], there are really long comments by ] , I respect the way mjb tried to reason in a very calm way. But nothing helped: all Brian G Wilson does is getting angry, posting incomprehensible comments multiple times on different people/article talk pages. You MIGHT try conflict resolution, however, I guess about ten people ''have'' tried it already in a calm way, the only result being this user starting insults and posting comments no-one understands (the sort of weird texts people believing in alien conspiracies etc... write) --] 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Ah, a classic case of one user vs. many. Well, if he resorts to making legal threats, the indef block is certainly valid, at least until he stops making these threats. --] ] 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: Apologies for vanishing straight after the above, my computer crashed before I even had chance to post a blocked note on his talk page. I am quite willing to consider an unblock if his behaviour shows sign of change, however I'm not sure how likely this is considering the latest . ] 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::God save the Queen… Regardless of the flipped lid, since licensing is implied with each edit, if a user openly denies the GFDL, can it simply and safely be ignored? Or does it automatically make them unfit to continue contributing? ] 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, it can be safely ignored, but no, it doesn't make them unfit to continue contributing. I think it just means the user needs to be educated about how GFDL is implied. It's only if the user starts making legal threats that they need to be banned, and not because it's a punishment. I don't remember the exact wording, but it has something to do with how someone going through legal proceedings should not also be involved with the entity in which they are pursuing such legal proceedings. --] ] 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I think the fact that he's now claiming that the entire Misplaced Pages user base are minor members of the British royal family in disguise using it to promote the use of drugs suggests to me that he -is- unfit to continue contributing. Anyway, must go to get my ermine robes fitted... dammit, didn't mean to give away my disguise! --] 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::] - this one's obsessed with electric pianos. --] (]) 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This has come up before; the case that I know of off the top of my head is {{vandal|Pioneer-12}}. He wanted to avoid licensing his talk contributions under the GFDL, and refused to accept that the GFDL was a condition of participation in Misplaced Pages. In order to avoid unecessary complications and legal disputes, editors who no longer wish to contribute under the GFDL are no longer welcome to contribute. If they change their minds, then they are more than welcome to return. Petros471's block is reasonable, and in line with how we've handled these cases in the past. ](]) 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Someone might want to take a peek at his talk page and see if his saying he'll "destroy Misplaced Pages" and other comments make it worth protecting the page. Amusing, but bothersome. ] <small>]</small> 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	::As I said before: this guy's incomprehensible nonsense keeps comming; this seems some sort of guy who sees government and alien conspiracies everywhere like I said in my remark above... well, his latest comments about the royal familly are exactly what I meant ;-) That's the reason another attempt at dispute resolution won't really work, different people have tried, this is the result ;-) --] 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::In that case, I'll just have to polish my crown and carry on. --] ] 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Sounds like Mr. Treason to me. ] 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	==== Community ban of ] ====
	I think we should consider him community banned. Anyone think it's too early for that? --] ] 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:If he decides he wants to start licensing his contributions under the GFDL again, we should let him come back. --] 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The community doesn't really come into it, and community bans are not implemented by a straw poll for a few hours on this noticeboard. They are implemented when noone is willing to unblock anymore for whatever (usually cumulative) reason. Anyway, if he is unwilling to release his edits under the GFDL then i)he must not contribute any and ii)by precedent, accounts that refuse to allow the GFDL are blocked until they agree to it. As soon as he is happy with that, there is no reason not to unblock him. So an indefinite block pending 'resolution', certainly. But a permanent ban by some kind of acclamation, no. And also, he can't retract GFDL permission as has already been observed, but that in itself is no reason to blindly revert him since his edits may hypothetically not be wanted anyway (and, being aware of the GFDL and continuing to edit is probably licensing his edits under the GFDL anyway. The notice is on every page.). -] - ] 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	--]] 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:And now he's back again using his previous account ] (check both account histories, first skysurfer; his edits stopped at the moment Wilson start, and now Wilson is blocked sky-surfer returns)... also check the edits: same topics, same wordings, ... --] 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This user has long been a problem user, causing trouble all across Misplaced Pages, getting in fights with people, and going against the consensus on ] on many issues. Recently, he opened a ] against a user, and has also made against me in the past. I think you admins need to take a serious look at this member and his actions. Also, he has ridiculous subpages that waste Misplaced Pages's space and some are even misleading and completely fictional. Note: He has also had an ] filed against himself. Obvious problem user. --] ] 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I am actually unsure about a consensus for a community ban. Making legal threats will not be tolerated on Misplaced Pages, but, even although they make Misplaced Pages a horrible place to be with them, the user has recently been making positive contributions. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I've worked with ], and he has made some valuable contributions. No need to block a user over some simple edit conflicts.--<font color="#999fff">]</font> 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Simple? A lot of his edits are farce, and his subpages are wayyy more than ridiculous, how can anyone defend those awful, rotten subpages? --] ] 00:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::The ] was default keep. I don't agree with some of his edits, but others have been just fine, and I feel if this user had been spoken to in a polite manner from the very beginning, he would never have reacted poorly. Unfortunately, that did not happen. --<font color="#999fff">]</font> 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::That's because he plays the victim and gets sympathy points from people. Tell me Firsfron, what gave him, the '''assumed right''' to make legal threats against me? I think it's pretty hard to speak in a polite manner to someone like CoolKatt. --] ] 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::No one has a right to make legal threats on Misplaced Pages.--<font color="#999fff">]</font> 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::So then why hasn't this person been banned? besides the fact that no admin has bothered to stop by and address this yet. There is never a good reason to make legal threats and no amount of positive contribution off-sets that, especially when coupled with the fact that they continue to make personal attacks against users who disagree with them. --] 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I'm going to have to agree with CFIF, legal threats are an automatic ban last time I checked, they were not to be tolerated. This person is still here why? Its a very obvious legal threat. --] 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	For my part, I consider this a personal attack, especially considering proper procedure wasn't followed and this was done simply as retaliation for agreeing with an AFD.
	] contributions here, you can see she claims I'm a sock puppet of apostrophe, but doesn't doesn't bother to label him a puppet master, and her evidence is non-existent. she also does the same to Opabinia . She's obviously trying to get an article reinstated that was deleted by concensus (and on which a concensus still seems to exist to keep it deleted) ] she presents no evidence and just goes out and defaces user pages in what I consider a personal attack. --] 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	: What really got me was . So Apostrophe has been saving up sockpuppets that he finally chose to deploy ''just'' to delete a Pokemon article? ] 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Are you saying that you also feel this is a personal attack? Just so we can spell it out for all involved.--] 02:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Eh, more amusing than anything, but since accusations in bad faith are considered personal attacks, then this sounds like it qualifies. ] 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	This is not the first time CK#9999 has made spurious accusations of sockpuppetry: see ] for a past example. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:wow. I'd never actually been back to that discussion after leaving my comment until now. That is absolutely ridiculous. I insist an admin tell us why this user hasn't been banned before now. --] 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: This guy is hilarious. "Everyone who disagrees with me is part of an evil collective with nothing better to do than to delete Pokemon cruft!" ] 04:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	I have to wonder too why this user hasn't been banned already, or even blocked before yesterday. disruption/harrassment, personal attacks, legal threats. We've permbanned for less than that. ] 04:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure I have any right posting here, as I'm not an admin, but I thought I'd point out that CK9^5 does have an unfortunate history of ignoring consensus -- the long list of musical artists on his page was fallout from a somewhat nasty debate on ] over who should be considered to be on a list of classic rock artists, and whether such a list was even necessary in the first place (the list was ultimately removed as unnecessary, and would probably be removed again as hopelessly POV if it was ever added back in); his general attitude through the entire incident was that those who disagreed with his classifications (which stretched the definition of "classic rock" into utter meaninglessness, in my opinion) should just leave the article alone. CK9^5's labyrinth of counterfactual subpages (which IMHO is more appropriate for GeoCities than Misplaced Pages, but I didn't make the rules) is evidence of someone unwilling to concede to consensus under any circumstances. I don't think CK9^5 is a malicious user, but he is definitely unwilling to accept differences of opinion. Just a few highly biased thoughts from ] 05:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::This has actually been here for 5 days (the firs tcomplaint) and the admin haven't given any input into this situation. Is there another place to put this where it will get actual attention?--] 20:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	I'd like to speak, as someone CK#9999 has repeatedly accused of all sorts of wrongdoing, as well as the subject of the frivilous RFC above.
	CK makes good edits, and I feel that, with the proper mentoring from an experienced user, can get past the paranoia and obnoxiousness. I also feel that punitive measures would be counterproductive (and I would certainly be the wrong one to be implementing them).
	Failing that, I oppose, for the reasons above, any punitive measure that isn't in specific response to a specific issue (a particular revert war, a particular spurious accusation, etc.) Let's not turn AN into a Quickpoll-style witch burning. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This isn't kindergarten. We expect to a certain degree that people behave maturely and act like adults. While I'm all for letting someone make a mistake or two and improve upon it, the pattern of behaviour I see here isn't one of someone who's interested in bettering themselves and participating in a meaningful way in a community. Someone who acts inappropriately or makes mistakes and is genuinely interested in growing with the community and contributingly positively will seek that out when it becomes apparent that they're not going about things the right way. They've shown a clear disregard for the community and those in it. They seem more interested in slandering people and making threats to push their opinion than realize there is probably a better way to go about it. Does that mean we cut people off on the first mistake they make? no. Do we coddle someone endlessly on the hopes they turn around? No. I've been in communities where they've tried to do that with trouble makers and it turns into a gong show. I say give them a week or two to cool their heels, make it very clear their continued behaviour won't be tolerated and put them on probation when they return. If they can behave properly, so be it, but ensure its very clear whats expected of them if they're to continue as such here, but letting them get away with the behaviour they've exhibited unpunished is ridiculous. --] 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	]. He talks about himself in the '''third person''' here. He is getting crazy. --] ] 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I need you to stop talking trash about me. I know many of you people don't like me, now stop this insolence. I will also nominate this section of the article for deletion, but not add a template. Anyone who feels this section be removed, comment here. ] 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I am a he by the way. ] 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Insolence? You're the one making personal attacks and legal threats. As it stands now, I won't support anything less than a permanent ban unless I start seeing full apologies and reparations for your behaviour. --] 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	So again, I'm going to ask: Where is the admin input on this issue? The trainwreck that is CK continues as he denies any wrong-doing and spins conspirecy theories about users who've never associated getting together to delete an article, all the while permitted to make endless personal attacks and legal threats unchecked. If necessary I'll continue to ask that question everyday until the time that someone shows up here and does their job. --] 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Hear, Hear! The admins seem to not be doing anything about BenH either. --] ] 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I just noticed that subpage CFIF posted. So ] ''isn't'' the one who contributes "poorly wrote sentences"? This guy is the master of unintentional irony. ] 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Greetings Adminstrators. ==
	Greetings Administrators,
	'''> Can you provide evidence to these accusations? Naconkantari 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)'''
	Yes, I can. Can you please email me at MichaelDWolok@aol.com
	Please look at the Many-Worlds article. And read Lethe's comments
	on the article's talk page from the time I made my first edit.
	'''> This editor seems to be somewhat confused. From the low volume and quality of'''
	'''> his edits and the high number of blocks he has nevertheless attracted '''
	'''> I expect that he has come to harbor a grudge against administrators.'''
	'''> --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)'''
	I harbor no grudge against anyone. I certainly harbor no grudge
	against any Misplaced Pages administrator. Accusations like this make
	me wonder about the accuser.
	The high number of blocks I have are because I post from AOL.
	All but three or four of those blocks were intended for others,
	not me. Two of those three blocks that were intended for me
	were put in place by Lethe. Both were for violating the 3RR.
	The fisrt time he issued the block, it was my very first day
	editing Misplaced Pages. I did not know there was a 3RR. Instead
	of identifying himself and explaining the rule to me, he just
	blocked me for twenty-four hours. The second time he blocked
	me for 3RR, I don't believe I violated the rule. I did not revert
	the same material three times in one day. The material I
	reverted remains reverted. Other editors agreed with me that
	there is no known category called "Gray Rape." A Google search
	of "Gray Rape" only turned up the Misplaced Pages article that
	described it. I have made dozens of other important
	contributions. Other editors have described the quality of
	my contributions as "excellent."
	For some reason, Sam Blanning and Lethe think their personal
	opinions are infallible.
	Only one other block was intended for me. That was by
	Sam Blanning for putting commentary into an article. I
	realized someone would see the commentary and correct
	an error in the article. I was afraid to correct it myself
	as Lethe was reverting every edit I made. Someone did read
	the commentary and made the change I requested. Again,
	this was on one of the first days I was editing Misplaced Pages,
	and did not know it was wrong.
	Instead of Sam Blanning introducing himself and explaining
	the error I had made, like Lethe he just blocked for 24 hours,
	and left a nasty note on my talk page. At the time, I didn't
	even know I had a talk page.
	Lethe and Sam Blanning were both as nasty as can be. They
	were patronizing, condescending and scolding like
	school marms with PMS. They insulted my writing ability,
	and belittled my talent.
	With administrators like these, it seems to me Misplaced Pages
	is hell-bent an making enemies and doing all it can to
	discourage new editors.
	'''> I'm not sure what Michael is spefically referring to, but I'm'''
	'''> not surprised he's being reverted for edits like these (I myself'''
	'''> reverted him twice when he was inserting commentary into'''
	'''> that article). He would be better off trying to understand the'''
	'''> policy of verifiability instead of spamming everyone in sight'''
	'''> looking for an "advocate". --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)'''
	I understand the Misplaced Pages policy of verifiability very well.
	I have reliable sources for everything I have added to Misplaced Pages.
	Just about all my edits have remained in place. Most of what
	I wanted to get into the Many Worlds article is now there,
	despite the fact that Lethe assailed everything I added as
	patently false, and reverted all of it in its entirety.
	Now, Sam Blanning and Lethe continue their personal,
	petty war against me, attacking me every chance they
	get and making snide remarks.
	I thank you for your time, consideration and patience
	Warmest and kindest regards,
	Michael D. Wolok
	] 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Without context, your post doesn't make alot of sense to be honest. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It makes ''no'' sense. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Contrary to the above claims, I have never blocked Michael for 24 hours or otherwise , and the warnings I gave him related to - actually the first edit only qualified as a warning in the technical sense, as I asked him politely not to insert commentary of articles into the articles themselves and pointed him to ], then when he the edit without response I gave him a stronger warning. Then I gave him a 3RR warning for other edits which was already too late. I've barely interacted with Michael at all since then, although I have been observing his contributions, hence my comments on his behaviour above. I'm also highly bemused that Michael feels I was ''"as nasty as can be... patronizing, condescending and scolding like with PMS"'', yet I was one of those he asked to be an advocate for him. . Can't comment on the issues with Lethe, but I expect the rest of Michael's post has an equally tenuous connection to reality. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	For those watching from home, I've filed ]. -] <sup>] </sup> 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Blocking AOL IPs ==
	Dear Wikipedian Administrators,
	I could be mistaken but I thought I read somewhere in Misplaced Pages
	that blocking an AOL IP never targets the intended user. I can't
	find that reference. Maybe, I am mistaken. I just know, my IP
	is blocked many times a day, and the block is always for some
	other user who has done this, that or the other.
	I wish someone could help me set up an account that will not
	mistakenly get blocked, with blocks intended for other users.
	Warmest and kindest regards,
	Michael
	] 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	*RU's aren't imune from autoblocks actually, so.. --] 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Unfortunatly AOL users are common vandals and AOL IPs have to be blocked to protect us from harm. However, these blocks almost always last no longer than 15 minutes, at which time you should be able to work again. Because of technical limitations currently we can not setup special accounts to let those legitimate users continue their work - even admins.
	:If you can, changing your ISP will stop your blocking as AOL is setup in a strange way that lends itself to being abused. --]] 02:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Let me expand on what you said. Vandals can be found at AOL just as they can be found at every other ISP. A large group of Wikipedians who are fortunate to not have AOL don't really care about good editors being blocked, and would rather block lots of good editors than have to deal with reverting vandalism. We need admins with empathy and admins who want to help good editors edit. Tooo many people here would rather kill off good editors as long as some vandels get killed at the same time. ] 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::You're welcome to take my place at the recent changes patrol if you're so for allowing vandals to deface the website. --]] 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	I can't seem to find the place now, but I am sure I read somewhere on Misplaced Pages that when you block an AOL IP you NEVER target the intended user, that someone else is always blocked, not the intended objective of the block. For some reason, I can't find this place. I think this place also stated AOL blocks should not last more than 15 minutes. Does anyone know where on Misplaced Pages I can find this information again?
	I have repeatedly had my AOL IP blocked for over twelve hours at at time. I find my AOL IP blocked on different user discussion pages by different administrators. I can still edit articles but find my AOL IP blocked by administrators who left the Misplaced Pages project months ago. For example, I tried to edit Garzo's discussion page, but found my AOL IP blocked by "Lucky 6.9". When I went to Lucky 6.9's talk page, it was blank. There was just a notice saying he had left the Misplaced Pages project and everyone should leave his talk page blank. In the meantime, I was still able to edit articles.
	That block lasted over twelve hours. I tried editing Joanne's discussion page, but found my AOL IP blocked by another administrator. None of these blocks had
	anything to do with me. All the blocks I encounter now are intended for other users.
	AOL has a lot of members so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of vandalism comes from AOL. It seems to me everyone should have to log in with a screen name and password. That wouldn't identify anyone, and would control vandalism. The idea of blocking a range of AOL IPs is worse than any evil that might result from having all users log in with a password.
	Your objective to be more inclusive is backfiring!
	It is unrealistic to expect AOL users to change their ISP for Misplaced Pages. To the best of my knowlege Misplaced Pages is the only web site on the Internet that gives AOL users a problem.
	Warmest and kindest regards,
	Michael
	] 06:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:We don't give AOL a problem &ndash; they do. I think in the past it's been suggested that you complain to AOL, and not Misplaced Pages. ] 06:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::We don't have an AOL problem, we have a lazy admin problem. Too many would rather block good users than do the work that could let good editers edit while stopping vandals. A single admin can get frustrated with AOL and ZAP hundreds of good editors at once. That is a lazy and bad admin. ] 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	: When we block someone vandalising wikipedia they maybe editing without logging in, if so we know their IP address and normally don't block for more than 15 minutes, we do however sometimes need to block a given address for longer if it is a sustained attack when the initial block (s) finish, normally however the 15 minutes suffices. The blocks I have seen you get caught up in are those where the user vandalises logged in, we block the username. Admins have no way of telling that the username wwas using AOL. The ] feature of mediawiki may then cause the IP address to be blocked until manually unblocked. There is no way for an admin to avoid blocking such users, since we simply don't know if it will further affect AOL users.
	: I appreciate you see it as unrealistic to expect AOL users to change ISP (to a greater or lesser degree I would agree), but it is also unrealistic to expect admins to let vandalism go unabated. As to if wikipedia is the only site which gets problems from AOL, we are large and certainly attract an amount of negative attention from certain AOL users but the aim of the project has always been to be open and so we keep the doors open, if you like those abusing this are the equivelant of those in society who mug old ladies, i.e. they go for a soft target. This doesn't mean that no effort is being expended on trying to resolve the problem, the elusive bug 550 is being worked on to rework the blocking system entirely which will hopefully go someway to sidestepping some of the problems. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It seems like autoblock does as much harm as it does good, perhaps more. Besides blocking innocent users, it forces them to reveal their IP address to be unblocked, whereas we go to extreme lengths to avoid divulging the IP address of vandals. Perhaps the autoblock should be shutoff until bug 550 is fixed. If the vandal makes a new account, it could simply be blocked when it starts vandalizing. If they edit by IP address instead of creating a new account, they can be given a 15 minute block, repeated as necessary. Alternatively, the autoblock time could be reduced to 15 minutes, which would frustrate vandalizers, but allow innocent users to simply wait it out instead of revealing their IP address. -- ] 07:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::If you inform someone quick enough, then you don't need to reveal your IP. Admins can go to ] and look up the autoblock, and unblock the autoblock ID, which is just a number, not an IP address. However, if you sit around for a while before doing anything about it, then you do have to reveal your IP. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::How quick do they have to be? If it very quickly becomes too late (10 to 30 minutes), then even making a long edit without loading any pages may force the person to reveal his or her IP address. However, there is a very good chance that the person will not even be editing at the time of the block. If he or she starts editing 2, 8 or 16 hours later, will it be too late? Also, the instructions on the block message tell you to reveal your IP address, I think, because it says "IP address that is reported in the block text", not the masked number.
	::::Blocking a user who is unaware of autoblocking is particularly bad, since they may think that they have been blocked for making perfectly good edits or that they have been blocked for making an unintentional mistake. While some indication of an autoblock may be given, it's best not to overestimate the knowledge of users, their technical competence and the probability that they will read ''and'' understand notices, instructions and warnings. I had to constantly reword and otherwise modify the somewhat popular website I run (9,000 members, many thousands of relevant, unique Google results and tens of million of visitors (I'm the sole admin, but did not create the site)) because of this problem. It has been refined about as much as possible, but a few people still manage to screw things up, although the frequency has been greatly reduced.
	::::Finally, the Autoblock page says that IP blocks are sometimes extremely long, even indefinite, if the account has been indefinitely blocked. Except for open proxies, indefinite bans on IP addresses are prohibited. It would be necessary for a user to reveal his or her IP address to get such a long block removed, unless they happened to be around when it occurred and knew that it isn't necessary to reveal your IP address if you act quickly, as waiting it out would not be an option.
	::::Luckily for me, my ISPs have given me a new IP address whenever the old one has been exposed and I have been able to change ISPs when necessary. Perhaps autoblocked users who want to keep their IP address private should be told to ask their ISP to give them a new IP address after it has been revealed in order to remove an autoblock. The disadvantage of this is that some information about the person may be attainable with the old IP address, such as the ISP and the user's general location. They could also change it to simply avoid the autoblock. Doing that won't help vandals much, since it usually takes a while to get it changed and an ISP is unlikely to constantly change a user's IP address. Another solution would be to have a form that a user enters his or her IP address into that gives a masked number that could be used in an unblock request. -- ] 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:] suggest HTTPS connections. Does that still work to bypass AOL proxies? As for the main topic, I have seen vandals putting summaries as "I have AOL and can't be blocked" or similar. I believe 15 minutes blocks are justified. It is the price for having an "anonymous can edit" policy instead of a "registration required" one, a ] as it is usually explained in TV. Let's hope ] will never use AOL services. -- ] 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	'''Please read:''' Some people do not get that when we get raped in the ass by an AOL vandal, we BLOCK THEM. You do not seem to understand the gravity of the situation. I'll record my screen next time we get hit by a sophisticated AOL vandal and you'll see why. '''BLOCKING AN IP RANGE DOES NOT BLOCK ALL OF AOL'''. We have to PROTECT ourselves and asking us to ''take the bullet for you'' is too much to ask some times. If you would like to pick up recent changes patrol, I'll let you ride along as you watch Misplaced Pages be defaced before your eyes by ONE user that we can't stop because the the AOL rules. --]] 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:We've all been sick of AOLs shit for the longest time. It bears repeating, If you have AOL, and you have problems editing, complain to AOL, not us. This may have been asked in the past, but why haven't we instituted a similar scheme that Wiktionary uses? --] - '']'' - ] 09:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::The secured server is in place; however, it can't handle the load. Misplaced Pages is quite significantly larger than Wiktionary, though I agree entirely that this is the best solution, and as such have been campaigning for some time. ] (]) 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Oh please. You people act like this is all that comes out of AOL. The '''vast majority''' of AOL edits are good edits. Blocking that is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've done my share of vandal fighting, it's expected of everyone. But when all you do all day is look for vandals then all you ever see are vandals. This us vs. them philosophy is fundamentally wrong. It fosters an attitude of 'were better then everyone else'. Everyone is who is building this encyclopedia. We have vandals, yes, but we have many more good edits, orders of magnitude more, coming from these IP's and its this elitism thats dangerous to this project, not these common, come and go vandals that are easily reverted. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::all true. Except, how is it ''elitism'' to block vandals as they come? We get a sophisticated vandal on an AOL range, we block that AOL range. We get a sophisticated vandal on an ISP of Burkina Faso, we block that. The whole point is that AOL is not sacrosanct: AOL ranges should be treated the same as any other range: incoming vandalism results in temporary blocks, end of story. ] <small>]</small> 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	Why not display a message when a Misplaced Pages page is accessed from an AOL IP number asking them to connect to https://en.wikipedia.org (or the https:// version of the current page) for "a more reliable connection" or a similar euphemism for an IP-specific connection? ] 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::IANADeveloper, but when this issue has come up before, apparently HTTPS puts extra strain on the servers. Wiktionary can do it, because very few people actually Wiktionary compared to Misplaced Pages. <font style="color:#5500BB">'''s'''murrayinch</font>]<font style="color:#5500BB">ster<sup>(]), (])</sup></font> 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== JumpTV spamming by ] ==
	{{user|Headeditor42}} has created a huge number of articles with text "Watch <insert channel name> on ]". The user has been warned for spamming, but claims this type of promotional campaign is valid since the user is only linking to internal ] article (which contains a single promo paragraph and a huge list of a large number of TV channels, some of which are not even provided by the company). Does ] prohibit such internal commercial spamming? --] 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	Not only that, articles created by the user with a few sentences are all cut-paste jobs from ]'s website. For example, ] is a cut paste job from . My guess is that this is just another attempt by an overzealous publicist to promote an organization. --] 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	Here is an update on this: I got an email this morning from JumpTV's online marketing division. The Director of online marketing apologized for the behavior of {{user|Headeditor42}} (who is an employee of JumpTV). However, the Director also requested whether an internal link to ] can be provided in the "existing" TV station related pages, since JumpTV is the only online Internet TV provider for the corresponding TV channels. Now, what's the policy on such links? It would be great if other admins could look into the links , and whether this request from the director is ok regarding internal links to ] in the "see also" sections of TV channel pages. Thanks. --] 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== User:PierrreLarcin2 ==
	I think an admin needs to review the behaviour of ] and his IPs in relation to the edit war on ], and consider a block. Incidentally, since I started reviewing this, I see the user I'm complaining about has put in an RfC and claims to intend to start an arbitration. If true, I'd suggest that any block should permit him to pursue those, even if (as I'd recommend) he cannot edit at ] for a time. A review of his behaviour took me far longer than I'd expected, but can be summarised as follows: POV editing: . Illiterate editing: . Just plain weird editing: . Advocating POV: (especially the motherfucker comment). Failure to ]: . Breaches of the ] policy and ] policy: . Accusations that editors who change his edits are Rotarians engaged in a conspiracy against criticisms of Rotary: . Wikilawyering, and accusations of "wiki-fiddling", whatever that may be: . Evidence ] and 84.100.98... IPs are one and the same (about halfway down):. Evidence ] and 84.102.229... IPs are one and the same: . Evidence of trying the patience of the community: . An odd piece of duplicity was the argument that strange "how to use the links"-links were there to assist blind users, which led me in good faith and (in consultation with ]) to initiate ] (now fallen out of archive). In fact, , and a few around them, make clear the actual intention was to give prominence to "bad" Rotarians like Pinochet and Hubbard. On the whole, I think the guy needs a lengthy block: he's disruptive, he's uncivil, he angers and attacks people, he adds bullshit to wikipedia, and he just fundamentally ''doesn't get it'': but it's a shame: he seems kinda genuine in his own beliefs. ] 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	I am getting very annoyed here - this is getting WAY too personal -
	. ] 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] versus ] ==
	Could an adminstrator please clarify for ] what constitutes a personal attack here at Misplaced Pages; I think they are unclear on this. See the bottom of ] for several examples of their work.
	] 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:They are likely unclear what a personal attack is becuase they have never been warned. I have warned them about their only two edits. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you.
	::For the record, please note that ] and ] also appear to be the same person as ].
	::] 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Unfinished Afd Attempt for ] by ] ==
	Hi! Looks like some more nastiness from some of my detractors. In this case some IP user listed the article about me for deletion, but only went as far as to put the header on the page, and did not add the topic to pages for deletion or start a discussion thread about it. Sorry to be such a PITA, guys. ] 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Anonymous can't AFD articles, as they can't just ]. I believe you could remove the tag and explain in the talk page that, in order to AFD it, the user needs to create an account. -- ] 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandalism of ] by ] ==
	Hi! I reverted these edits already, but I bring this up here because this person is an admin. Do admins have some exemption from the rule of not editing comments into closed AfDs? If so, then let me know, and I'll happily undo my reversion. ] 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:]'s edit included the reason for his edits to that page. I don't understand why either party is ] over this, or why it can't be worked out between the two of you. ] 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::The talk page would be the right place for such comments, right? My only concern is that these are never supposed to be edited, and I wondered if there was an exception for admins? (I didn't know he was an admin before I reverted, BTW.) ] 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree that the talk page of the article is a perfectly good place to put comments about the old AfD, or the AfD talk page. I don't feel there's any exception for admins to edit closed discussions, though I could be wrong... -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Excuse me--vandalism? I merely made a notation on the page about the probable use of sockpuppets in the voting so that if the article comes up for another AfD editors can be aware of the sockpuppets (which voted in both of the last two AfDs for the article and have made few other edits to Misplaced Pages). While it is not standard procedure to edit an AfD after it is closed, in this case I felt it was warranted and I added a notice of what I'd done to the closing editor's talk page (see the note ). I also can not be said to be ] over the item because I have not reverted ]'s deletion. Because this possible sockpuppet use has occured with both AfDs on this article, I felt the talk page was not an appropriate place to put the notice. That said, if the consensus is that this is not appropriate I will accept that consensus. I must protest the vandalism charge and feel it is wrong to make that claim against me. --] 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	(edit conflict) On the other hand, "vandalism" is entirely the wrong word to describe Alabamaboy's edits. It's hard to imagine that he's trying to make the encyclopedia worse by editing a closed AfD, quite the contrary. Let's not get into the habit of calling things vandalism when they aren't. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, my assumption was that editing anything that says on it that it is uneditable is vandalism. I retract that word. ] 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::It's an honest mistake. See ] (policy) and maybe ] (essay) for more on what is and isn't considered vandalism here, if you're interested. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Always interested! Thanks ] 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	I appreciate that. Since you object to adding that information to the AfD page, its fine with me if it stays off that page. Instead, I will place information about the use of sockpuppets and other AfD irregularities on the talk pages of
	] and ]. This way future editors will know of this information if they bring an AfD up on either of these articles. Best, --] 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::This is the comment I have added to the article talk pages: "] and ] have been involved in previous ] discussions which have involved the use of sockpuppets and attempts to "stuff the ballot" (even though AfDs are not a vote and these attemtps do not matter to the outcome). Possible sockpuppets include ] and ]. Anyone attempting to bring an AfD against either of these articles, or attempting to have discussions regarding these articles, should be aware of this fact." Best, --] 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yep! Thats where it belongs! ] 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	This arbitration case has closed.
	] is placed indefinitely on ]. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from '''any article concerning a medical subject''' which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at ].
	] is cautioned to limit critical material to that supported by reliable scientific authority.
	Delivered on behalf of the Arbitration Committee as clerk. I take no part in making these decisions. --] 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Routine unprotection of ] results ==
	Today ] went through the usual ritual of temporary unprotection, for seven hours. Here are the results of today's experiment:
	* 10 anonymous edits which were reverted (counting sucessive edits by the same address as one)
	* 2 anonymous edits which were not reverted:
	** 1 of them removed some information, but I've not checked whether it improved the article
	** 1 of them shuffled a couple of words to add a wikilink
	* 1 non-anonymous edit (not reverted)
	* 10 reverts:
	** 1 manual revert
	** 6 rollback-style
	** 2 using ]
	** 1 using ]
	* Average time before being reverted: 1.9 minutes
	--] 18:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Good (that is, statistic wise) - the other revert time was three minutes. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Washington post linkspam... ==
	{{user|Downtown dan seattle}} has placed a ton of links to projects.washingtonpost.com. Now, the links he's been adding are actually relevant to the articles.... but he's added them to about 40-50 politician's articles and it accounts for more then 90% of his contributions to wikipedia. I'm worried that Dan works for the washingtonpost and is attempting to drive up traffic to his bosses' website. On the other hand, it could just be a new user who found a useful resource and decided to add it everywhere. Not real sure... Some administrator attention needs to be paid to dan. ---] (]|]) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd say the links are legit b/c they are individual links to each member's voting record. I'm going to assume good faith and go with the new user who found a useful resource.--] 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::As long as the links appended are relevant and encyclopedic (per ], etc.), I can't imagine that the user's intent matters here (although I agree with Alabama that we should ]); if he desires to drum up business for the ''Washington Post'' but undertakes to do so in a fashion that benefits the encyclopedia and doesn't result in the inappropriate external link spamming of pages, I think we'd be fine with that. ] 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== User VB bof ==
	A new user ] is making in rapid tempo many seemingly random reversions to sometimes much older versions using popups. --]] 01:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Now edits were all vandalism, so I'll go through and revert them (and probably indef block ] also). '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::According to the issue has been taken care of. --]] 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::He came back as {{vandal|VBandal}} and was indef blocked by both Cyde and GraemeL. ] 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Editprotected ==
	I would just like to point out that admins very rarely check ], and requests can often go unnoticed for some time. There are two pages listed in that category now, but ] has multiple requests on it, and ] has one request. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Malformed AfD ==
	As a new admin, I have absolutely no clue what to do with ], which was listed again today. Is it G4 if the previous deletion was for crystal-ballism? What should be done with the re-formed AfD? I would appreciate it if a more experience admin came in to deal with the situation. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I think having a new debate makes some sense, the article is somewhat better than the previously deleted one although there are still mostly rumors. I will try and refactor the nomination using {{tl|afdx}} and a new AfD page. ] ] 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Just for clarity, the current nomination is at ]. The above link is the original AfD. -- ] <i><sub>]</sub></i> 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Please direct your attention to the discussion taking place at ]. I need to convince this user to change his ways, because his signature it way too similar to another user's. Assistance would be appreciated. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I have done nothing wrong and this admin has seemingly plucked me out of cyberspace to harass me about my user name. He has used the word "impersonate" incorrectly. It does not mean "names that look similar" it means "To assume the character or appearance of, especially fraudulently." I am not assuming anyone's character and did not even know about the existence of the other user. The other user and I have nothing to do with each other. Our names looks similar. That's it. A single click by anyone would make it clear who I am. This kind of pressure should be applied to someone who is impersonating another user which I am clearly not doing.] 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: I think the concern is that your ''signature'' name is too close to a user's ''username''. In this case, ]. Your current user name, ], is fine and all that is apparently being asked of you is that you change the signature. I will agree, however, that perhaps the comments left on your user page were far too harsh and there was a more positive way that this issue could be approached by CrazyRussian. -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">] — ]</sup> 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It's too late, Joe. I appreciate your comments and wish you had been the person to bring this up in the first place. I completely melted down on my Discussion page which only gave CrazyRussian another excuse to talk tough with me. I wish I had not exploded like that but I really felt like someone came from out of nowhere and treated me as if I had been doing something wrong, and that I needed to have immediate pressure applied to me. That was never the case. Thanks again, Joe, for acting like a thoughtful Wiki-citizen. I appreciate it. ] 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::You are only human. Had I been a new Misplaced Pages user myself, I may have reacted in the same way. As a member of the community, I can't apologize for the actions of CrazyRussian, becuase that's for him to do -- and I fully disagree with how he approached the subject of your ''signature''... because he clearly assumed bad faith in this case, as demonstrated by his wording to you. Obviously, if you need any help from me, feel free to ask. Even if you need to vent. -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">] — ]</sup> 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Isn't this an abuse of block and violation of ]? ==
	As a consequence of this edit ] took the decision to ] me for 24 hours. His motivation are explained ] where he says that "my POV pushing days are numbered" and conclude the discussion threating to block me for a week if I will ever dare to revert him again. Now let's fix some points:
	# ] was not an "independent observer": he was already taking part to a ] on the opportunity of describing the "controlled demolition theorists" as "conspiracists";
	# the dispute involved several people in both the party as you can see looking at and keeping pressing "newer edit";
	# ] was supporting a change to the old version of the article (so he needed the consensus) while I was supporting the old version;
	# In the ] you can read the following paragraph:
	::''Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, '''sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute'''.''
	So I think it's clear that ] did violate the ] realizing an abuse of power. Isn't it? What can I do to defend myself from this kind of abuses? Is there an authority that can prevent ] from behaving in this way?
	--] 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd say your POV-pushing days are numbered, myself. Take it to talk and achieve consensus for the change, rather than unilaterally reverting. ] 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::You clearly don't know what you are speaking about:
	::#I was not changing the article, I was keeping it
	::#I was not the only one trying to keep the article as it was
	::#MONGO didn't had the consensus for his changes and for his reverts
	::#Even if what you have said was right (and it is not) it would be not sufficient to justify a block when involved in the content dispute.
	::--] 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It doesn't matter how many people were fighting for the change, it is contentious. Like I say, take it to talk. You appear to be under the common misapprehension tat pushing a POV is when ''other people'' assert ''their'' viewpoints. Pushing is pushing. ] 15:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I think the admin should have found another admin to do the block if he beleived it was reasonable. Even if one assumes that ] was not trying to use his powers to win a debate, it certainly creates the perception that this is happening. Admins need to be kept to a higher standard and should '''never''' take action against a person they are currently in a content dispute with. This is my opinion and to my knowledge is compatable with wikipedia guidelines ]. ] 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Ben Burch (3rd nomination) ==
	] has started again. I'd apreciate it if a few admins could add it to there watchlist and help keep some of the vandels/trolls out? Thanks! ---] (]|]) 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks! ] 16:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] user page ==
	{{user|Rdos}} wrote an original research article on his "Neanderthal theory of autism", which was deleted (more than once it my reading of things is correct). He now keeps it at his user page. Proto and I have both asked him to remove it, as it is offensive to some editors who are autistic or Aspies. He refuses at this point. Before I up the pressure I'd appreciate some others having a look. ] 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:If there are objections, user pages are not the place to put deleted content. I'd say the content should be deleted. --] ] 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The idea that this material is "offensive" to some autistics basically has no merit. I propose that ] explains why most large autistic sites have a link to the Neanderthal theory? What many autistics *do* get offended by is ] and ], so I suggest to remove them instead. --] 07:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Agreed. I removed the content, since Rdos refuses. ] 07:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	== User:Imthehappywanderer's category creation ==
	A new user (]) has been busy ] by simply creating them within themselves. Obviously, most of them are a complete mess to deal with. I've tried to fix some but I'm just wondering if others could help either fix the categories or simply delete the ones that don't make sense. -- ] (]) 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	The question has been raised on ] about the purpose of that page, and if it's redundant to ANI. Personally I think it serves an important role filling a niche in between ] and ], as explained in my reply to brenneman on the RFI talk page. It would be good to get other admins input into that discussion though, is it a useful page to have around? If so it could do with some more admins watching that page and acting on reports posted there. Might be better to reply over there to keep discussion together. ] 08:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Userpage advertising ==
	Today I came across ] who has a user page that consists of nothing but advertising; there are no other contributions to Misplaced Pages from this user beyond the ad page. This seems like an inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages, so I brought it here for an admin to take a look. Thanks. --] (]) 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Page deleted (instead of just blanked) and username blocked as advertising NutroVita. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ]...again ==
	] is back to <s>screwing up</s> "contributing" to TV station articles. The 24-hour block didn't do anything, so I think we need a harsher block so this <s>tool</s> "misguided contributor" doesn't "contribute" to any more TV station articles. He's testing the patience of everyone at ]. Block him, for the love of God. --] ] 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:What is wrong with adding dates in place of years to articles, as a matter of interest? ] 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Because they are unsourced and likely complete farce. We are also tired of some of the other things he does. . He consistently degrades articles. It's bad. --] ] 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree that his changes need to be sourced, but I don't agree that anything he's done rises to the level of a block. Also, it looks like the work that he's doing to the categories is correct. And, if the information he's providing can be shown as correct, I actually prefer his diff on the article link you provided. ] 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Well the station doesn't brand as "upn9" and didn't at the time of the revert. I'm sure if you asked every member of ], they'd tell you the same thing, his edits take good articles and lower the quality, also, the "Television stations in *state*" wasn't supposed to be added to articles at the time, but it appears that new "*Network* affiliates by state" templates have the stations included in the category. He is a major pain, but obviously the admins can't see it. --] ] 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Not to mention that . Explain how that's constructive. ] --] ] 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::BenH should be blocked for good. I myself have fixed some of his "edits" so that they read better or were more accurate. If BenH can prove he can constructively contribute, then this won't be a problem anymore, but right now it is. So just block BenH for good, and everything will be better. ] 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I am so tired of BenH! '''PLEASE BAN HIM!''' Thank You! --] ] 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Why are the admins ignoring the community's requests to block him. I have yet to see a positive contribution from this user. We keep telling him to go away but he will not. --] ] 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Please, for the love of God, ban him! --] ] 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::: Because "the community" in this case seems to amount to you. Tedious though he may be, I don't see a pressing reason to block at this point - please go through the steps in ]. ] 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Now how am I able to talk to this dolt if he '''NEVER''' responds to messages. ] And look, there is more than one signature, so it does appear that this is a community affair like I said, and not something that seems to amount to me. --] ] 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Help in massive deletion needed ==
	{{userlinks|Imthehappywanderer}} created quite a few circular categories. I started deleting them and then noticed there were more than THOUSAND created during 6 hours! Looks like he was running a bot. I blocked him for a while.
	Now I need help in undoing his work. If someone of admins has some one-click tools or some spare time, please help. `'] ] 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This incident is also listed on both ] and ]. It is possible that he might have used the ] and created everything he saw. Unfortunately, a lot of entries on that page are nothing but errors. It pretty much looks like nothing has been properly sorted, so it's a giant mess. For what I can see, he's been blocked permanently. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: It looks like that is exactly what he did -- the entries on ] from about no. 300 to no. 800 are all on happywanderer's list. ] 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't see a real '''HELP!!!!''' here. The mess must be cleaned up by '''several admins'''. I alone cannot revert all what a bot have done in 6 hours. Some editors already fixed some of his categories, so a manual inspection is necessary, i.e., it cannot be reverted in anti-bot-like manner. `'] ] 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'll lend a hand if someone helps clarify what needs to be done. Should we speedy delete all the categories he created, or do we have to go through and determine which ones are actually useful and place them in existing hierarchies? That's a lot of work. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::These categories were red and hence attracted attention of people who could fix them. Also sometimes this user made wrong categories, like putting fish into people (probably cut and paste in wrong place, so I guess it was a semi-bot). So speedily deleting them is not evil. However if you can place them it is useful. So I suggest
	::::#Check is this user is the only editor of the category (i.e., the "(top)" label in his contribution list is not enough)
	::::# Try to place it
	::::# If you cannot fix it quickly, just delete it.
	::::Of course, proper placement in all cases would be better, but this guy corrupted a HUGE number of categories, so IMO better to undo this quickly. ::`'] ] 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the pointers — that will help. Alas, real life calls, so I can't get into it now, but I'll try to lend a hand tonight when I get back. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I'm working on these -- about half of them are good categories that need placing, and about half are duplicates (i.e. "French singer" for "French singers") that need emptying and speedying. These don't strictly meet the speedy criterion (i.e., empty for 4 days) but I have had good luck getting them speedied if you mark them "circular category, emptied and deleted" or the like. ] 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	They '''have''' to be speedied because they are resut of the work of a vandal bot, not a honest editor. The longer bad category remains '''blue''' the higher is chance that it becomes more populated and hence more work to undo it (if a category is '''red''' when I type it, I know something is wrong (like with your "French singer" example), but if it is blue, I suspect nothing wrong). So I suggest a merciless deletion here. `'] ] 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	: The easiest way is to go through ] and look at the ones where he's the last editor. Else, they been fixed somewhat. Also, I don't take it personally but why is everyone paying attention now and not at my ]? -- ] (]) 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:no idea, but the work is done now. ] | ] 05:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Of course, I get back and the work is finished. Oh, well. (Incidentally, I notice that the category edits aren't even showing up in imthehappywanderer's contribs any more. How did that happen?) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Deleted items do not, IIRC, show up in contribution history. I am sorry I did not help. As I said on AN/I, I looked at some of the created cats but was not sure what to do so did nothing. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's correct. Once an artilce or category or image is deleted, any contribs to it do not show up anymore in a person's contrib list. You have to look at the deletion log to see what was removed. ] | ] 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Foggy and Sparky ==
	I am sorely tempted to speedy-delete ] and ] under A7; but technically it doesn't apply since A7 is for articles "about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", but it isn't clear whether the definition of "person" is restricted to ''H. sapiens''. Thoughts? ] 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Merge to ]. ] should probably be then redirected to ]. Purely editorial decisions; no need to use any admin buttons. ] 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Johnny the Vandal ==
	Hmmm.... could be a joke, but looks like something to me: . ]]] <sub>]?</sub> 00:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I gave the account an indefinite block. His first edits were for his own RfA, indicating he is familiar with Misplaced Pages. Then he added some accounts to ] long term abuse page. His final edits were to talk pages claiming that he is Johnny the Vandal. If anyone wants to unblock or change the time, it's fine with me. -- ] 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Fake copyright tags ==
	There are dozens of images uploaded by ], ] and ] among others. They are taggedeither "all right released" or some "Creative commons" variant. However the license of Wowturkey is NONCOMMERCIAL/WITH PERMISSION ONLY.
	as it's described here: ] or ]. Turkey involved people have asked for us not to speedy them, but there are literally hundreds of them (I've removed about 100 today, many to go) with phony licenses or marked NC, and it's unlikely Wowturkey.com will release all his images for commercial use under GFDL. So I just want to give you a heads up.
	Here's a quick list of my latest findings:
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	I think I mistakenly tagged some of them (since I initially thought they were all from system Halted. The point however, is that all of those are '''not creative commons licensed''' images. -- <small> ]</small> 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Thanks for taking on this mess. ] 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It's been a busy day, removing images from pages before killing them. If after a month WT hasn't released the images, they're not liekly to do it. They're speediable by jimbo's rule, and now that undelete for image exxists, should they ever become GFDL or CC, we can restore them. Meanwhile, they're not suitable for wikipedia nd I'll be removing them during this week -- <small> ]</small> 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Global adminbacklog messages ==
	I just finished a quick JS script for monobook that adds a blue "message-like" bar that lists all non image related backlogs, such as CSD and RFPP (assuming they are tagged), whenever you are logged in. There is no bar if there are none, but there usually are. Off course, it can be fined tuned to only show certain types.''']''' 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: And, oh voice of us all... where can we get it? 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (comment by ])
	:::Its currently embedded in this.''']''' 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	This arbitration case has closed.
	{{user5|PoolGuy}} is restricted to one user account, and placed indefinitely on ]. He may be banned from editing any article that he disrupts.
	To aid enforcement, his checkuser details have been logged by ].
	For the arbitration committee. I take no part in making these decisions. --] 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	..made a personal attack on me . He said "''...you idot''". Could someone do something? --] 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Adding a comment in the user's talk page should be enough, unless the user has a background of personal attacks. Tell him that he should make ], and that he should stay ] and ]. If he continues, you can request an administrator to review his behaviour. Most times users do understand they have been wrong and apologize, or at least, they stop making such comments. -- ] 04:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::But... he's made personal attacks before, I noticed from his talk page, he was warned (). I warned him too, but whats to stop him from doing it again? --] 04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::What is an idot? <i>sorry couldn't resist</i> ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I like this statement, "Got that you damn Serb (No offense, though)," which makes no sense at all since he could have easily said something non-offensive like "do you understand". -- ] 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Well, isn't anyone going to do something about this user? --] 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::The comment I made to the person was made because I was getting mad with that guy who kept editing that page. He kept taking out stuff and changing stuff on the page. Also on Bormalagurski's talk page, I made that comment because he kept changing the User cg template to User is, which got me very pissed off. After that comment, he made compromise, Thank God. I really am sorry for making those comments but whenever someone pisses me off, I do that. ] ] <font color="FF0000">]</font> <sup>(<font color=green>]</font>/<font color="#30D5C8">]</font>/<font color="FFD700"></font>)</sup> 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I kept taking out stuff and changing stuff on the page? Isn't that called '''editing'''? So, when someone makes an edit you don't like, you get mad and that allows you to call people idiots and damn Serbs? I accept your appology now, but you have to control your emotions and we can't tolerate this forever. I wish you all the best, and in hoping that you change, peace out. --] 05:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (I registered)
	==Hello==
	I'd like to change my username, cuz this one is not made up of latin characters. Change it to something like Kosovo or KOCOBO or K-O-C-O-B-O. Thanks, --] 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Please follow the instructions on ]. ] 05:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Quote from that page: "''If you have very few edits, it is far quicker to just create a new account.''", which in this case (~4 edits inluding the one above) appears the thing to do. ] 13:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Some inappropriate usernames ==
	Here are a few likely inappropriate usernames that were registered recently but not blocked:
	*{{vandal|penisdaddy}}
	*{{vandal|Capn Crack is a perverted sicko!}}
	*{{vandal|pissenlit}}
	*{{vandal|Xbox360sucks}}
	*{{vandal|Thirteenstepsx}}
	You also might consider looking at {{vandal|Oral caress}} and {{vandal|As I drink nectar from thy fair bosom...}}. The names don't seem very harmful to me but may still violate the policy of alluding to sexual acts.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	All above in the list are now username blocked -- ] 06:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Here are some more:
	*{{vandal|horselover00}}
	*{{vandal|Delicate lesbian kiss...}}--] <sup>]</sup> 06:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Delicate blocked, Horselover is not an inappropriate username. I mean, I'm not overly keen on horses myself, but I wouldn't say liking them merits an indefinite block.--]<sup>]</sup> 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree with Sam, but a point of note for people posting here when using the vandal template: please make sure the username has the first letter capitalised, otherwise using the block user link from this page will not work. I had to re-block ] and ] because no block was in effect. Maybe the ] page should be fixed so that registered usernames are automatically capitalised in the relevant textbox, anyone experienced in filing Bugzilla requests? --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Template fixed. —] <small>(])</small> 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::] (a ])] 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Here are some more:
	*{{vandal|Negrus}}
	*{{vandal|Moderator.Seraphim}}
	*{{vandal|Captaincrappyjacks}}
	*{{vandal|Poo601}}] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	Moderator blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	*{{user|百家姓之四}}
	Please hold off blocking this guy, he appears to be making good faith contributions, is responding to his talk page messages, and I have asked him to make a change of username request. ] 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== {{Vandal|Holywarrior}} ==
	This user has recently nominated the page ] for ], claiming that it has "spawned users such as ] and ]" and "acts as an interacting platform for organised vandalism". By "organised vandalism", he means warning or blocking him for his own acts of vandalism or policy violations. According to ], he has created several POV-pushing pages related to the caste system and removed db-attack templates from them and labeling them as vandalism. He has also labeled several users who have warned or blocked him as vandals or sockpuppets of other users and created a userpage on a certain IP stating that it is a sockpuppet of ]. Due to this user's history of trolling, this nomination is obviouly in bad faith and in my opinion it should be speedily closed and this user should recieve a block.--] <sup>]</sup> 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Frymaster is a liar where he found "he has created several POV-pushing pages'" I challenge him to name a few.] 05:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::''removed db-attack templates from them and labeling them as vandalism''---Mr Frymaster what else do you call when an anonymous not involved in any kind of talk or contribution deletes the whole page and tags attack, and why should it not be reverted.] 05:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::For further explanation of allegations plz see .But will these ppl face any trial for having put up ''bad faith'' discussion on me. ] 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::''By "organised vandalism", he means warning or blocking him for his own acts of vandalism or policy violations''.----No by organised vandalism I mean instigating vandalism and then backing him,Actions of ] is suspect in this case.He even had talk with vandal before and after the event.Can you tell when was I warned or blocked by any credible person.Pasting block message on someones page for no cause or warning are itself vandalism do you want to differ.] 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	I think the user should receive an indefinite block. "Holywarrior" is not really an appropriate name in most contexts, let alone trying to build a neutral encyclopedia. So I say we make him pick a new username. --] 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:either block him for trolling, or politely ask him to pick a new username so he can keep his edits if he likes. Blocking him for his username in response to trolling seems a bit arbitrary. ] <small>]</small> 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It's not in response to trolling, this is simply the first time I've seen the name. Bad usernames are blocked regardless of whether or not they are trolling; are you implying that if they ''are'' trolling then we shouldn't username block them?! --] 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think a block for the username would not be misplaced, nor would action for trollery/disruption. ]] 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I have no respect for lazy,arrogant admins.I need explanation from both these admins where did I vandalize and where did I troll.I do blv CVU need to change itself,it was just unfortunate they discuss "holywarrior" only during discussion and sweeped all the dirt under the carpet.Never ever think of bullying someone,at least I am not the guy to be bullied by these ........ admins.] 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::See here how these ppl shamelessly protected themselves.CVU deletion may be revived again..plz check history because these ppl keep on erasing my comments to suit their vandal interest.] 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC).I think I have answered all the questions raised against me.But what about Devonshire and company.They need to proove themselves and their organisation in question.Your Bad manners are furthered by your Bad manners alone.] 05:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::If ever blocked for username,I want answer for these questions.] 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	]] teaches Holy Warrior how to use spellcheck.
	::'''if ppl involved in discussion don't have answers but have conscience,I propose to them to put warning tag on their page by themselves. sometimes satan misleads even wisest of individuals'''.] 08:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::FOR RECORD:All of them failed to show they have either of the two.] 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	As a totally uninvolved user, I gave {{user|Holywarrior}} a ] warning over his calling another user . Since then, he has been harrassing me calling me an , and to him, and finally he issued a threat against me saying . I believe such disruptive behavior (and a look at his contribution, which mostly contains similar threats/comments/bad-faith edits){{fact}}deserve a block for disruption. Thanks. --] 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Plz look here for true story ,Rajib has deleberately presented in the manner which may be misleading .] 15:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Also, please take a look at his ] user page being used as an attack page. I'd request such personal attacks to be removed. Thanks. --] 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Dear Rajib Plz don't pretend to be non-involved in this case.Infact you were one who were waiting for the opportunity to post a block on me.Your warnings were one sided being an admin why you failed to take similar action against others engaged in more heinous act even when you were shown who were these.You were retending to be on wikibreak.My userpage is not attack page ,It contains true story of how I was attacked by reckless admins one of whom are you.] 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	I suggest you remove your ], this is against wikipedia's policy. As I referred above, you deserved a ] for calling another editor "a 3rd grade liar". Please refrain from making funny remarks about me "pretending to be non-involved". Nobody's "waiting for an opportunity". Find some other target for harrassment. --] 14:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Why are you feeling harrassed,I have made no such remarks on you which may harass you.Infact it is me who has been unduly harrased by many ppl and reason was not given and they have disrupted my work plz try to be honest with your comments.And it is you who sounds funny---You are trying to present facts in slanted manner.By voting against me you have just shown your bad temperament ,I think you should along with others review your ability as admin if you ppl have any conscience.By the way are you a voting admin only ,I have found you voting on many ocassions.Anyway Majority rules and you are fortunate to be along that side but Knowledge gets the other side.I am afraid ppl like you will kill the wiki mission.] 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::If my user page looks like an attack page I am sorry but I have not written most part of it.They are all true stories written by many ppl.One of them is you too.If it sounds Horrific let us face it because they are merely records of wikipedia---which conforms to wiki policy.Do you disagree????] 15:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::So much effort in response to a justifiable ] warning (further evidence of my "ganging up against you" as part of a vast world conspiracy??) !! I request you to remove your attack page, which is against wikipedia's policy. Thank you. --] 15:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Sorry you could not justify it.If warning were to be issued in this manner then bots will do a better work.My contention is it was one sided. ] 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Sorry they are all just hyperlinked pages.Can you remove those original pages.If wikipedia allows one person to be abused and takes no action against any other what is the use of any of its policy and admins likes of you.] 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::And the manner in which you put up "Request" abuses the word itself.I hope some gas must have blown out of baloon.] 15:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	"Third rate-liar" is a personal attack and any editor (admin or not) would be in the right to place an NPA warning on the talk page of the issuant. ]'s user page is also inappropriate in my opinion by listing diffs with spurious added commentary by him (e.g. "CVU deletion trial" as opposed to an MfD that failed) and ("Admin who tried to bully me"). The entire commentary above is suggestive of trolling. I've blocked him for 48 hours for trolling, and submit the block for review on ]. -- ] <small>]</small> 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Request for limited edit to protected page ] ==
	Fire Star referred me to this page since s/he is involved in the discussions and shouldn't make the change hirself. This page was recently protected after the introduction of a new 1st paragraph for the ]. Without taking sides in the debate, I'm requesting some simple formatting changes to bring back the links to Wiktionary that have been there for months and align the references with the formatting style of the rest of the page. I've posted this request on the talk page and there have been no objections. Fire Star has seconded the request. The new text is below. As you can see, the only change is the move of the first verb, reintroducing the Chinese language Wiktionary links and changing the formatting of the references. ] 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	{{cquote|'''Falun Gong''', ({{zh-tsp |t=]]] |s=法轮功 |p=Fǎlún Gōng}}; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as '''Falun Dafa''', ({{zh-tsp |t=法輪大法 |s=法轮大法 |p=Fǎlún dàfǎ}}; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).<ref>Falun Dafa.org , retrieved June 23, 2006</ref> In ''Zhuan Falun'', the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious."<ref>Hongzhi, Li. , ''Falundafa.org'', retreived June 23, 2006</ref> In recent years, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of Fa-Rectification.<ref>Hongzhi, Li. (December 9, 2001) , retrieved June 23, 2006</ref>}}
	*I was the one who protected the page. The editing is contentious and there is a straw poll on the talk page. I'd favour keeping it protected until some element of consensus is reached -- ] <small>]</small> 05:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Just to clarify, I'm not asking for unprotection. I'd like a dispassionate admin to look over the existing version with the above, verify that it's just formatting changes, and make this single edit. I have no doubt that we'll end up with something much different, but while it's there it might as well be formatted correctly. ] 06:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I've made the edit, after verifying that it indeed contains no substantive differences to the previous version and that the formatting changes comply with the relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines. —] <small>(])</small> 13:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thank you. ] 14:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Felicity4711 and smartquotes==
	] has been or directed quotes, but, as far as I can see, is unilaterally imposing them, as in and . I don't know enough about the technicalities, but I think someone who does ought to check this out. ] 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Ugh, to me this is borderline vandalism, unilaterally imposing a style that is widely disagreed with on dozens of articles without discussion. It makes the source impossible to read. - ] 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I’m unsure whether it is my place to post my opinion here (as I am not an administrator); however, apart from the html v. unicode argument, what objection could anyone have to the use of ‘smart quotes’ over the use of " & '? It seems to me an entirely irrelevant issue (as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used). Personally, I am lukewarmly in favour of the use of ‘smart quotes’ - they are typographically correct, and somewhat more æsthetically pleasing - though I am not as zealously committed to the cause as ] is. If she wants to go around, doing the mammoth menial task of swapping " for “ & ” and ' for ‘ & ’ in the many myriad articles of Misplaced Pages, then good luck to her - it’s not a negative thing to do (although, I '''could''' think of better things to do with my time). It would be inappropriately authoritarian for Misplaced Pages to impose the exclusive use of one form over the other (particularly the less correct " & ' over ‘, “, ’ & ”); slight differences of style are to be expected in an encyclopedia with so many editors. Please, tolerate some inconsequential diversity of style, and allow ] her harmless pedantry. ] 03:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Doremítzwr, especially this part: '''as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used'''. The &amp;ldquo; and &amp;#8221; nonsense has got to stop, but other than that I see no problem. —] 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yes, the unicode is fine, but the HTML stuff is rubbish. If she modifies any more articles in that way I'm going to exercise my right to harmless pedantry to make then readable again with the unicode. - ] 06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Changed to unicode smart quotes or keyboard apostrophes and primes (I presume that you mean the former; however your meaning is rather ambiguous)? If you do the latter, she’ll probably just go back and revert your changes; however, if you coöperate and change them to the former, it may encourage her to do so as well, and agree to only use unicode smart quotes in future. Shall I send her a message on behalf of you all, asking her to do so? ] 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	Her work is going to be changed, as has already happened with . - ] 15:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I’ll take that as a yes. ] 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	For reference, I have posted showing how the quotes added by ] to the article ] appear on the latest version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh when the user is logged in in Japanese. The quotes are double width because IE renders them in a two-byte Japanese font. I suspect that similar problems may occur in many Chinese, Korean, and other non-English computer systems. ] 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Yet more usernames... ==
	Sigh...
	*{{vandal|Corn-hole}}
	*{{vandal|Eros St. Voyeur}}
	*{{vandal|Erotic lust}}
	*{{vandal|BREASTS!}}
	*{{vandal|CUT13W1TBUTTY}}
	*{{vandal|Lesbian courtesan}}
	*{{vandal|Sorry, I couldn't think of a username}}
	And also, there's a not recently registered user with the name ] that I warned earlier about his username.--] <sup>]</sup> 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Uh, This user has left wikipedia had his username changed to that as part of ]. No reason to block. --] 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I do not see Corn-hole as sexually suggestive or offensive. I indef blocked Eros St. Voyeur and Erotic lust. BREASTS! already indef blocked earlier. For the last one I don't think it's suggestive or offensive, though others may disagree. ] 07:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::"Cornhole" is a word that refers to the anus, similar to asshole.--] <sup>]</sup> 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It can also refer to the ]. See ]. --] 07:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::(Two edit conflicts) By Misplaced Pages's standards, I think corn-hole would be considered offensive. "Sorry, I couldn't think of a username" is not offensive, but it is unwieldy and my cause confusion. If the person becomes a regular contributor, perhaps he or she should be asked to change names. -- ] 07:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::] says we have to assume that he means the game. The other isn't really bad, and certainly not worth a block. --] 07:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: ] has nothing to do with it. The username policy is quite clear that it is not if the creating user finds the name offesnsive, but if others do, thus a name created in good faith but offensive to others is still unacceptable. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 08:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Why would you find the name of a game offensive? --] 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: And your point is? I haven't said the name is offensive, I have pointed out that ] has nothing to do with if a name is offensive of not. We block the name, not the user. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 14:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::It's technically possible that a user named "Corn-hole" is only interested a game, just like it's possible that a user named "Ass-wipe" just likes cleaning donkeys. I wouldn't put any money on either one, though... -]<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Someone will want to block Lesbian courtesan, no ambiguity about that one. My school's proxy server filters URLs with certain words so I can't block. ] 07:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::And that someone is me. Blocked as of now. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Message on top==
	I think someone should put some space bars on the messages on top of every article (the one that says about wikimania and scholarships. When there is an icon of spoken articles or featured articles the number 28 is hidden behind them. --] 07:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Alternatively, the spoken/featured articles templates should be edited to move them further down, as the rest of the metadata templates did. --] 07:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I think I fixed Spoken Misplaced Pages, tell me if it's still broken (I have siteNotice hidden in my css). ] is protected, I can't fix it. --] 07:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::If an admin wants to, <nowiki>"<div style="right:10px; display:none;"" needs to be changed to "<div style="right:10px; top:26px; display:none;""</nowiki> in the first line. --] 07:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Page inexplicably appearing in ] ==
	Why does ] show up in ]? I looked and looked but there isn't any CSD template on the page. Editing the page reports that {{tl|db-reason}} is transcluded, but I can't find where, and the page hasn't been edited since June 8, whereas it started showing up as a CSD less than a day ago. Any ideas? ] 08:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I remember coming across this problem before, so perhaps you want to look in the AN archives? ] 08:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Apparently ] is transcluded there, too. Since that was recently up for speedy deletion without noinclude tags (since I didn't think that anyone would be transcluding his userpage), and has since been deleted, the cache must not have cleared on the archive, even though the userpage has been deleted. --] 08:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::] ] 08:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::By the way, it was removed from the cat when he removed a period because editing a page clears the cache. --] 08:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thank you. I forgot all about the cache. :) ] 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	I purged the cache, it's out now. --] 08:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Celebrity impersonator ==
	] violates Misplaced Pages's ] by using ]'s singer ]'s name. Obviously, he's not Urie, as he vandalised the band article. --] 08:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Blocked. ] 09:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Interwiki ==
	Check out. ] 10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Uhh.. so? — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">]</span> 13:54 June 24 '06
	:::What are you saying? <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Nobody was doing it, so he asked here. It's done now. --] 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Ramesh chellani ==
	Impostor or sockpuppet of ]? ]]] <sub>]?</sub> 15:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Doubtful, ] is named Ramesh Lakshminarasimhan, and it appears to be a first name (like ] wouldn't be an imposter of me, but ] would be). --] 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Dollar problem ("$") ==
	We have the "$" problem again. When unblocking a user on the unblock page, and the unblocking him/her, the text near the top of the page says "] has been unblocked" - it shows the correct name of the user, but the piped link is "$1". If I knew the MediaWiki text I would change it myself, but I don't... <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Uggh. The page involved is ]. It was a red link before I touched it, so it was using a default value. I tried changing it, but it fails. Even a straight unpiped link still goes to "User:$1" while still displaying the user's actual name (liek whut?), so I have no clue how to fix it, so I re-deleted it. — <small>Jun. 24, '06</small><tt> ''' <<u class=plainlinks>|</u>>'''</tt>
	== Help with move Emir -> Amir ==
	I tried to move the page Emir to Amir, but a page with Amir already exists, which acts as a redirect. The article refers to Amir throughout, yet the title is still Emir, this should be changed, but I can't figure out how? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
	:You need an administrator to delete the redirect page, which I have done. In the future, you can ask at ] or put {{tl|db-move}} on the redirect page. —] 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::This is far from an uncontrovertial move. Please put it back and use requested moves. -- ] | ] 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It seems like a simple transliteration issue (the Arabic letter alif is never transliterated ''e'' as far as I know), and the history of the redirect page was trivial. You can move it back without administrator intervention, but please discuss it on the talk page. —] 22:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::It's not about transliteration, it's whether we should use the most common spelling of an English word. The usual spelling in English is Emir. "Amir" is an acceptable variant, but its not the preferred spelling. - ] 23:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::"...a simple transliteration issue..." seems to imply lack of familiarity with the ]. Cambridge dict doesn't recognize at all, and Merriam's only has it as a . And where do you think ], ], etc. comes from? Should definately be moved back to ], and posting at requested moves seems likely to only waste people's time. ] 23:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	==A trivial matter I need help with==
	] 20:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	: What action do you want admins to take? -- ] 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Indeed. I believe the trivial matter of you removing links has been handled already. - ] 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::If ]'s spam is OK then no action at all is needed. ] 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::And if you'd stop calling a legitimate link spam, you'd be less insulting. If you object to a link, you remove it, and it's replaced, you need to detail why you feel it's inappropriate on the article's talk page, not merely call it "spam" in an edit summary. - ] 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	Just as the ] and ] articles are spread over two suites '''Flu''' (], ], ], ], ], ], ]) - '''H5N1''' (], ], ], ], ], ])); so too should the links be placed in the most appropriate article, not in as many articles as someone thinks they can get away with. Your links do not belong at ]. The exact location you added your links recommends ] as a proper place for good and useful links about H5N1 in the category of ''News and General information''. The comment with my latest deletion of your two links said ''take to talk page''. You should have. You didn't so in lieu of an edit war, I brought it here. Links spamming is affecting all of wikipedia and so I was also hoping for this episode to either benefit from or add an example to the general wikipedia wide effort concerning spamming. ] 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:And you ''still'' haven't taken your concerns to the appropriate talk page. - ] 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This "user" admits to being a shared account used by multiple people. While I cannot find the exact policy, I am certain this is prohibited, and have blocked the "project" accordingly. Unblock if I was incorrect. --] - '']'' - ] 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Although I have absolutely no love for RJII, I do think you should have probably asked here before blocking if you can't find any policy. I don't see what's so wrong with sharing an account, as long as all people sharing take responsibility for the actions of the others using it. That's how I see it anyway. ] 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::] is the page you might've been looking for, Jeffrey. ~ ] 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::There's definitely a page on enwiki about that, but I can't remember. The term used is "public account," though. --] 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Here we go, ]. The block was valid. --] 21:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Also, ]. --] (]) 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If different users posted from a same IP, doing same kind of edits, wouldn't you block them as sockpuppets? ] 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	Also, the self-admitted aim solely to push their POV into Misplaced Pages is more than enough reason to block. --] 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:So then why weren't they banned a long time ago? It's been pretty obvious they were pov pushing for quite a while, yet they were allowed to complete their little project anyway. What's the point of blocking now, just 6 days before they voluntarily leave? ] 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Did they ever come out and say that they were doing nothing but inserting their POV into Misplaced Pages? If not, we'd have to ]. --] 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::They often admitted to considering Misplaced Pages a battleground. Besides, AGF only goes so far, and this has been pretty obvious. Anyways, RJII doesn't care about assuming good faith (they have said it themself), so why should we assume good faith with them? ] 21:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Fine, so maybe he should have been blocked earlier. That doesn't mean this block is invalid. --] 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::True, I just wish it would have happened much earlier. ] 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Endorse. - ] ] 21:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Blanked soapboxing on user page. Concur with block, this is a self-admitted POV push and using WP as their playground. ] 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	There's a bigger problem here: The editors behind RJII were being '''paid''' to engage in POV-pushing on wikipedia 24/7, and they managed to slip by the checks and balances currently in place. They have fooled the wikipedia community for a year and a half. By any measure, this is a collossal blunder on our part. I believe a review of existing rules and procedures must be launched to ensure this does not happen again. -- ] 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:How do you know this, and, even if it were true, how is it significant;y different than any unpaid POV-pushing? ] 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree; the motivations behind POV-pushing are irrelevant. I have no problem with people being paid to edit. I wouldn't mind a little kickback. --] 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::There is a problem, actually: People being paid to POV-push have much more time on their hands than the rest of us. RJII could routinely impose his POV against large teams of other editors. He created entire POV forks that are still largely POV to this day. Simply put, 1 paid POV-pusher = 10 unpaid ones. -- ] 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::1 paid = just as easy to block as 10 unpaid. --] 05:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Not as bad as you think, the account of the users in question would probably not have lasted much longer. Furthermore, anything too egregious is likely to just get diluted in the normal process of editing. Besides, how many articles of the million or so we have can they really have hoped to have "fixed up". Honestly, a more interesting statistic would be how long before their contribution is effectively reduced to nil. - ] ] 22:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Interesting question, especially since they claimed that measures were in place to ensure their contributions would remain, with details to be provided. Without those details, it's hard to say. Perhaps it's something as simple as having their contributions in the edit history where like-minded editors can find it. Still, their little screed seemed like just so much masturbatory self-congratulations without those details of how they did what they claimed to have done. ] 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think it's more a matter of including the same information in numerous articles. -- ] 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	You all are assuming this is true, as well. rjii.com remains but a placeholder. --] 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:A casual look through RJII's contributions (dated May 2006 and earlier) will show you that no one could possibly have time to edit that much and go to work - or, for that matter, do anything else during the day other than eat and sleep. No one person could keep up that pace for a year and a half. -- ] 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't know what you're looking at, but I just scrolled their last 5000 edits and it is decidedly '''not''' 24/7 like they would like to claim and like you seem to see, and follows a pattern of activity and inactivity (analguous to any other busy user). --] - '']'' - ] 09:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I have had a number of dealings with RJII, and there was nothing unusual about the extent of his editing, and he was considerably less active than hundreds of other contributors over the same period. I would be particularly shocked to learn he had a research assistant, as his sources never seemed to go beyond what one could easy to find with a Google search. In this case, I feel that ] makes RJII being a single user with a penchant for self-aggrandizing fiction a considerably more likely scenario to him being a team of covert and well-funded operators. - ] 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I too have dealt with RJII, and fully agree with SimonP. Enough already of the conspiracy - it's a single user jerking the chain. It's a wind up, and you're taking the bait spectacularly. ] 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Concur. - ] ] 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	If you are talking to me, than you should know I'm personally not taking any bait, thank you (it was obvious from the get-go he was spewing hot air), and I personally don't give two fucks if he is not a they, as he/they say they are a they then they were blocked. --] - '']'' - ] 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Blocked IE users no longer lose edits ==
	Today, I submitted a patch for ], which ] applied with some modifications. Thus, the page shown to blocked users now has a textbox that contains the source of the page, or, if they were already editing when the block was applied, the content they were trying to save. This has two major effects:
	# Blocked users can now view the source of a page without resorting to odd tricks like ].
	# ] users no longer lose their edits if their IP is blocked while they are editing.
	The latter should reduce the severity of the collateral damage from blocking shared IPs (either directly or through the autoblocker) quite a bit. I'm sure a lot of AOL users will be thankful. —] <small>(])</small> 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:How come IE users lost their edits? <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Pressing "back" in IE doesn't preserve form content, whereas it does in Firefox/Opera. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Request for addition of users to ] ==
	Someone flagged the issue for admin backlog earlier today. We need an administrator to come and approve or reject the wikipedians waiting for AWB approval. Some have been waiting 4 days. The specific page is here: ]. Thanks! --] <sup>]</sup> 00:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Problem is solved by ]. Regards, --] <sup>]</sup> 03:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==A Users' Image==
	I noticed ] created an Image that contained two copyrighted logos, ]. The Image is a logo of a football (soccar) club and the other is the ] logo and some text that says his name below it. I'm not sure on what the rule on that is, but I'm sure thats copyright infringment. The Two logos are not any differant from the original logos and they are copyrighted, anyone want to take a stab at this? — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">]</span> 00:51 June 25 '06
	Moe, its quite simply a dervative work of copyrighted work and therefore cant be released as a free image, can an admin please del ] 00:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Nuked. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Would this user need a username block? --] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I would say yes, as a user with the name "Burningjesus" would probably get a block. --]]] <sub>]</sub> 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Blocked. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::We need another username block on ] --] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::A mentally retarded transvestite? <cough> (There is, btw, a possibility with some religions and philosophies that "burning" would not be an insult, but rather X in purification/divinity. I doubt that's the case here.) ] 14:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think the username in question is actually a drug reference, although it could easily be misinterpreted. If I'm correct, that's still a block, so no big deal. (The Buddha one, not the other.)-]<sup>]</sup> 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Retard TV. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	PoolGuy was recently the subject of an Arbitration case, which decided that after he should be put on probation, and limited to using one account. In the two days since the arbitration case closed, he has made two formal requests (on ]) and several other requests on his and others' talk pages for ] (a sockpuppet) to be unblocked/unprotected, on the specious grounds that since the ArbCom didn't specifically find that the account should have been blocked, they implicitly decided that the account should not be blocked. This sort of sophistry and barrack-room law is typical.
			* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
			* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
			] '''Technical news'''
			* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
			] '''Arbitration'''
	PoolGuy has made no edits to articles, as opposed to talk pages and the WP namespace, since March . His edit history prior to March is not extensive (about 50 edits to articles in the last year, mainly typos and capitalisation correction, and eleven edits since November). He has caused a great deal of disruption since then, but contributed absolutely nothing to Misplaced Pages. I suggest we're way past the stage of exhausting the community's patience. Does anyone have any objections to a permanent block? --] (]) 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	: I'd certainly agree, his pointless ] got old months ago at this point I cannot see it as anything other than trolling. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 14:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
			----
	:: I've permanently blocked the account. If any other admin feels he's worth unblocking, go ahead. --] (]) 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
			== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
	:::No problems here, he keeps abusing unblock claiming that ArbCom had no basis for it's ruling, if he keeps it up a protect is in order -- ] 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			repost from archive:
			The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
	Maybe a permanent IP block is necessary since IP autoblock is only around 1 week.--] 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
	== Bizarre userpage chain ==
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	Hello. I have found a series of user accounts that are apparently being used for some kind of personal game project. User accounts ], ], ], and ] are hosting content in userspace for what appears to be an imaginary game show. Nearly all of the edits for these accounts are to their own userpages. I don't know what the policy is on this kind of thing, so I'll leave it in your hands. -] 10:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
	:They fail ] and ]... ] 10:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
	::That I figured, but what happens? Do the accounts get zapped? -] 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
	::: I've deleted the pages and left a note. I don't think the accounts should be blocked right now, as they have had little or no warning about what they were doing. If they continue now, that will be another matter of course. --]] 10:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
	:::: Woops, I just blocked them all for a week. I don't wish to revert only because my gut tells me thay all knew exactly what they were doing, and had almost no encyclopedia edits or community interaction aside from whateverthefuck they were doing. --] - '']'' - ] 10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
	::::: Well, my reasoning was (but perhaps that was a bit of too much good faith?): they find this place they can edit and see it as a most convenient place for their games. They don't encounter any policy pages, as they're just sticking to their own userpage. No one is telling them not to, so why would they stop? I won't revert your block though, I see your reasoning as well. --]] 10:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
	::::: Looking at the histories, they even edited anonymously, and the IPs I checked didn't come back to any other edits. They knew exactly what Misplaced Pages is and they knew exactly what they were doing. However, if someone were to unblock, I'd be cool with it (mostly because I'll be offline for the next day or so and can't follow up as exstensively as I want). --] - '']'' - ] 10:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
	:::::''Woops, I just blocked them all for a week.'' Man, I hope I never get on your bad side :) -] 10:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
	::Time for Geogre the scold, I suppose. We should warn them first, but I also think they have to know they're doing something wrong, even if they haven't read any of our policies. They know this isn't MySpace, whatever else they know. It's very likely school chum message boarding. So, I'd say we should warn first, but then we don't need to give more than 2 unpurposed edits before slapping down with a block. Kids sitting in their IT class or library have used article talk pages to chat with each other, in the past, so these are at least polite enough to do it in talk pages. (Then again, awareness of talk pages takes some knowledge of how Misplaced Pages works and, arguably, knowledge of what it isn't.) ] 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
	:Incase you are interested - <s>this</s> '']'' looks like ]. ]] 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
			* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
			** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
			* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
			* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
	== ] is self-admitted role/"public" account ==
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	See ]. . This account seems to not be allowed on wikipedia, as in ] and ] for being an account intentionally shared by multiple users. ] 16:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
	:I have indef blocked this self-admitted public account. If Iasson's friends want to edit Misplaced Pages, they should each get an account. ] 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
			* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
			---
	== Personal Attack by Eep² ==
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
			* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
			As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	. This user has a long history of disruptive behaviour. Upon attempting to clean up the SL article I found that in May he had overlinked the entire article. Investigated revealed a total of about 20 articles he's overlinked. I've cleaned up all but 8. He went through and linked just about every word (or part of a word) he could find on wikipedia, and those he couldn't he linked to wiktionary. He marks every edit as minor, even when he removes and or adds entire sections to an article. --] 16:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Perpetual hoaxer? ==
			::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			Reposted above from archive, see ]
	What do you do with a user who actively works on adding hoaxes to Misplaced Pages? It can't be speedied -- {{tl|db-nonsense}} specifically excludes hoaxes. How do you keep bumping them down the disciplinary road to eventually get them off Misplaced Pages? &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	:Actually, hoaxes are a trouble spot on CSD. Some of us (many of us, actually) consider them vandalism. Vandalism is always a CSD. They're not nonsense (lj;lkjl;kjlkj), but they're clearly malicious edits designed to deface: vandalism. ] 20:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::If the user is unambiguously a hoaxer then tagging as vandalism is fine. I'll happily speedy multiple hoaxes. It's one-offs which may just be obscure which are the problem. ] 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
			:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
			:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
			] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Okay. If anyone wants to help with the monitoring, ]. The Crocodile stuff, however, is legit. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I've seen multiple articles that look like hoaxes at a first glance, but turn out to be real after a bit of research. Of course, they should be citing sources, but I guess CSD is made to protect such articles that are legit, despite not looking the part. - ]|] 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
			::::* To who would this be a threat?
			::::* Which law?
			::::* In which country?
			::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
			::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
			::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
			::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
			::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I should say that I have to be '''sure''' that it's a hoax before I consider it vandalism. When a kiddie writes an article saying that "Bobby won the Grand Prix at Monaco in 2007 and thats real good for a ten yearold," I put it into the same category as a vandal. Indeed, the clever hoaxes are harder, but they also demonstrate more of a desire to deceive and are, therefore, worse. ] 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== 12.34.238.243 ==
			* I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	He's vandalizing random user's talk pages, and he is editing even though he has been blocked. He has also been repeatedly warned. Bot? (I doubt it, though.) ]]] <sub>]?</sub> 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
			*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]?
			*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
			*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]?
			*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]?
			*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
			*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
			*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Holywarrior block ==
			* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
	I've blocked {{vandal|Holywarrior}} for 48 hours per the below (see relevant above thread):
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
	:"Third rate-liar" is a personal attack and any editor (admin or not) would be in the right to place an NPA warning on the talk page of the issuant. ]'s user page is also inappropriate in my opinion by listing diffs with spurious added commentary by him (e.g. "CVU deletion trial" as opposed to an MfD that failed) and ("Admin who tried to bully me"). The entire commentary above is suggestive of trolling.
	I submit the block here for review -- ] <small>]</small> 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	:Despite the fact, that I don't consider ] to easy to deal with (and a change of username may be an option), the thread above has a prehistory, as ] (now indef blocked) and socks were busy making threats against ] and try to give the impression of acting as delegates of the CVU. See of and ]. Anyway, 48h block may be OK for cooling down. --] 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}
			:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Just for clarification, I have no prehistory with ] (Please review my ]). My only "Ganging up" activity was issuing a ] against this user, for reasons cited above (i.e. calling another user a "3rd rate liar"). Following that, I looked in the other comments in the talk page, and in a CFD for renaming, which Holywarrior opposed (My comment there was : ''Rename: as per Mareino'' hardly even a comment). Holywarrior turned his actions against me (see his last 15 edits or so) and claimed I pretended not to know anything and was bullying him . Well, as I said, my only knowledge of this affair is ANB, and I don't really care to delve into the past or present disagreements this user has with others. That seems to be what Holywarrior has against me, and for this, I had the honor of making an entry in his ].
			::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
	::Well, I hope he cools down, and gets back to editing. His recent edits in the last week show only reverts or attacks in different pages, and a very dubious nomination of ] for deletion. I hope a 48 hour break will change such behavior. Thanks. --] 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{ab}}
			*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
	== copy of Half-life computations ==
			*{{userlinks|Oct13}}
			A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I need to obtain a copy of the last version of the Half-life computation article prior to deletion for personal reference and was referred here to leave a message to that effect to which any administrator can respond. Thanks. <small> ...] (])</small> 23:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] header information. ==
			:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	A discussion regarding the design of the ] page is ongoing at: ]. If you use this page, please stop by and contribute. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Apologies, Reporting myself here. ==
			::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{vandal|HawkerTyphoon}}. I am really rather sorry, chaps. In an attempt to stop a flame war, I have ] In doing so all the old notes have been archived, and I have deleted a few user's messages. Please accept my apologies, I have apolgised to the users concerned, but I was concerned that the talk page was getting a bit heated, and it seemed like a drastic solution to keep everyone quiet over the hoo-hah with ]. Block me if you must, I'm confessing 100%, and I know it's vandalism, but I hope you're lenient. ] 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
	:Prbbt! Unless you'd gotten a vandalism warning or something like that, you could have been ''rude'' and just deleted. Since you archived, there probably isn't a problem. You didn't have a bunch of warnings from admins, did you? ] 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
	:Go read ], in particular the "Bold Edits" part. --] 13:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br>
	== Administrative comment on WP for the Seattle Times? ==
			Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Like the headline says. I have a reporter who has contacted me looking for an administrator to comment on Misplaced Pages's issues in the public eye. To quote, "I'd like to be able to include a Misplaced Pages administrator's response is to some people's claims of inaccuracy, and especially about schools/teachers prohibiting its use as a resource for school papers."
			:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	To protect that address from spamming, any interested administrator should edit my talk page, or contact me through ], or use AIM and message "Corbin Simpson". Timely replies appreciated. - '''<font color="#003399">]</font>'' '''<sup><font color="#009933">]</font></sup>'' 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Please refer the reporter to ]. ] 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			:::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
			:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
			:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
			:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
			:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] backlog doin' great ==
	== Block links on history pages ==
			I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
	Is it just me or do these new links seem a bit unecessary to have for every user that edits a page. They just clutter up the history page and make the summaries go over to the next line more (kind of messy). I'd rather have it back to the way it was before. Rarely can I just know enough to block a user right from the history page.''']''' 06:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I thought that was new! I actually find it quite helpful, but that's just me (perhaps because I'm not an admin, so I don't have all the special tools you often have, at least I think you have special tools, I'm not really all that sure). ] 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Homeontherange==
			== Call for mentors ==
	This extremely biased 'administrator' consistantly attacks articles on individuals and groups on the UK traditional conservative Right. He rubbishes and demonises them, and he is currently running around sneakily flagging them up for deletion. He is largely responsible for a legal dispute on one of them. He needs disciplining. ] 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Dude, seriously. Nobody is fooled by this. Give it up. (Just for reference in service of the curious, this is about the perma-block of ] for legal threats). -]<sup>]</sup> 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Authorship of A Course In Miracles article, nominated twice for deletion ==
			:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
			:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			==Discussion at ]==
	The article ] has been nominated twice for deletion. It passed the first deletion attempt, obviously (or else it wouldn't be around to be nominated a second time). The current vote demonstrates by great majority that consensus is that the article should be kept. However, why should we have to vote on this again when we just settled it two months ago? And having settled this matter two months ago, what if the consensus once again is to keep the article (which will likely be the case), and then someone comes along in two more months and nominates it again? It will just go on and on and on.... Is there anyone who can put a stop to this? This is a waste of everyone's time. -- ] 09:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
			== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
	:There are ] (either way) on Misplaced Pages. Just as multiple AfDs resulting in Keep indicates that the content is probably encyclopaedic, it also indicates that there is something about the article which inspires scepticism. In this case, despite the presence of references, it looks so much like ] that I can see why it would get nominated. I am not sure how that can be fixed, other than by citing more reliable authorities. At present the dispute which the article documents looks rather like The People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front - a dispute between two groups of no evident significance, over a document whose significance outside those groups is also open to question. I guess you could start by making the case in the article for why anyone should actually care? ] 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
	::JzG is, to be sure, correct (and two months is a good period of time during which more evidence might arise or during which an article might change substantially); in any event, for articles that have incurred an exorbitant amount of AfDs, see ] (18 noms, of which many were substantive) and ] (at least 8, I think). ] 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Holy fancruft, Batman! ==
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	] documents the term "deadhead", meaning a fan of the Grateful dead. Most of what is in this article is uncited, and some editors are arguing that Usenet is a reliable source since no other source exists. I think this article needs to be around 1/3 the current length. Maybe some others with more experience of rock culture could have a look? ] 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Trigger Happy ==		== Heritage Foundation ==
	Dear Administrator(s):
	I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits.
	But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.
			There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.
			== Deleted contributions request ==
	I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With-Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.
			{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.
			::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
	And keep that finger off the trigger.
			{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
	(If I don't cop flack for this one, I will climb the Reichtag Bulding in a Spiderman outfit).
	] 11:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Please provide a photo of your climbing the Reichstag in a Spiderman outfit. ]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>]</small> 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::When will you be climbing the Reichstag? I'll try to be around :)) (and could provide the photo then) ] 12:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:We are the ] and will block you indefinitely for violating the ]. Also, we will extend this block to everybody you have ever met because you violated ], which is definitely policy. ] 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::You also fell foul of ] pretty quickly. ] <sub><font color="green">// bornhj</font> ]</sub> 12:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I may be a trigger happy administrator drunk with power, but I am not a Nazi! I'm a commie bastard, thank you very much (not really). But seriously, if we don't get an example of what you are talking about, we can't determine where (or if) the system broke down or if someone acted improperly. -- ] 13:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	: You have less than 100 contributions to main space. Do you care to tell us which of your contributions were carefully researched and planned? I don't know if or were carefully researched and planned. Could you provide some enlightenment? --] 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	why are you inserting this image (] at random talk pages? --] 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Image nuked, since it had no copyright tag or source for over 7 days. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s>
	== User:Vision Thing ==
			:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
			:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
	When people reduce detail of minority POV in an article, as per ], Vision Thing reverts them without discussion.
	*
	*
	*
	*
			This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	As well as engaging in minority POV pushing, he engages in provocative commenting repeating that his own view is significant. (WickedWanda is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked user Hogeye). Anyone who is familiar with the subject matter would realise the falsehood in this statement. I request that he be blocked for disruption and failure to comply with WP:NPOV. -- ]''']''' 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	PS. This is not an isolated incident. He makes edits like this all the time. See for details. -- ]''']''' 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Hide this racist edit. ==
	== Article ownership on ] ==
			{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	I ask other admins to keep an eye on the ] article. A user known as ] is reverting and blanking almost all edits not his own. When a new section of the article was opened on tourism, the user blanked it twice without explanation. When approached about this, the user proceeded to write a very nasty talk page message, bordering on a ], calling the recent edits "uppermost stupidty" . I am not that active on the site anymore, but this kind of bullying and article ownership attitude is highly uncalled for. -] 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Seems to be primarily about whether to include Husnock's couple of sentences on tourism in Slovakia. While Juro's talk page message mentioned above was not the epitome of civility, Husnock's material in dispute is at best stub-like and at worst rather naively unencyclopedic. Juro's other contributions to the Slovakia page have been very worthwhile. The solution there earlier today - to put Husnock's sentences in a separate stub at ], referred to from the main article and available to be improved by others, was perhaps a good one, though one which now seems to have been edit warred away from. Maybe someone with more time than me can mediate... ] 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	::As a compromise, the material was moved into a new article ]. ] promptly blanked the article again and has twice reverted information which he does not personally agree with. Other admins should keep on certianly eye on this. -] 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Update to this. ] was blocked for violation of the three revert rule after 4 reverts to the article. A quick look at the user contributions shows heavy POV pushing and personal attacks against other users. This might become an edit war problem if the user returns. As for me, I'm done for the night. -] 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Disappearing Categories ==
			:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
	A iterim 'management' revision in speedy deletion of categories seems to be in order as three 'maps' categories pages interwikied from ] (See: ]) top-down heirarchial reorganization were deleted <u>here</u> despite several correctly showing reflected images of content in the commons. See ] for detail and request to check for the templates (Example at right) being used in the interwiki category reorganization.
			{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<div class="infobox sisterproject">
	<div style="float: left;">]</div>
	<div style="margin-left: 10px;">''<u>Main Article</u>: ''']'''''</div>
	<div style="margin-left: 60px;">] has image media such as pictures and maps related to:
	<div style="margin-left: 10px;">''''']'''''</div></div></div>
	Note also, any pages which should be ''exempted'', by you all, from speedy deletion will be showing the auto-category: ] (Which long winded name resulted from the Cfd, mine was shorter! <g>). Questions or suggestions on how to reconcile the project with the speedy deletion criteria to ] or below. Thanks // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
	== ''How to edit / view source'' ==
	eh, way too wordy, could someone change it back to just ''view source''? fully protected, so only a sysop or higher can edit it, thanks--] 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes - I do slightly dislike it myself - I think its a software setting, unless it's under ]. ]] 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: Discussion which caused the change is ]. It's been changed since, but I don't think the current version is much better (something like "Edit page (read only)"). In general to hunt down the relevant Mediawiki: entry, try ] --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I was fine with ''view source'', but apparently that confused some people who were looking for the "edit" button. ''How to edit'' makes no sense to me, so I changed it to ''edit this page (read only)'', which seems more intuitive. —] 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::"view source (editing disabled)" appealing? ~ ] 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			*
	== Protecting to prevent requests for unblock ==
			*
			Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Recently I have started seeing a couple of admins protecting user talk pages specifically to prevent users from placing an {{]}} request. As I understand things, policy allows protection of user talk pages only in the case of persistent vandalism so I'd like to get some comments on what others think of this practice. --] 01:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
	:Some people re-insert the template after their first request is denied, to the point of disruption. If anyone (for example) kept inserting the template every 5 minutes after their first {{tl|unblock}} is denied, I'd consider protecting due to {{tl|unblockabuse}}. But if they haven't made their first request yet, the user talk page shouldn't be protected. ] 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			== 96.230.143.43 ==
	:Per Kimchi.sg's remark, it's appropriate to do this in cases where an editor has a history of abusing the {{tl|unblock}} template, particularly if they've received multiple confirmations from different admins that a given block is reasonable. The idea is to prevent ] from filling up with spurious requests, so that admins can actually find and address actionable unblock requests. I hope that admins aren't preemptively applying protection, except where there is a long history of abuse. ](]) 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Thank you. The uses I had seen did ''not'' seem appropriate to me (protection after the 'unblock' request was placed only once or twice... and both the original blocks and unblock request removals made by admins who had been actively edit warring with the users), but the '''intended''' use you describe is more acceptable so I'll worry about the specific case still open (it's on an indefinite block) rather than the process in general. --] 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] 2==
			::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Similar to the complaint ], I have another thing to report. User CrnaGora is constantly harrasing me and attacking me personally. He has called me many offensive words in Serbian and English, like "kurva" which means "whore" (), "you damn Serb", "budala" which is something like "numskull" (), "I spit on you", "Are you that stupid...", and the list goes on. I have politely asked him to stop contacting me, because I do not want conflict with him, I just want to be left alone, but he keeps leaving me messages, personal attacks and provocations. He even admitted that he has "anger issues on Misplaced Pages". All of the quotes can be found on my and his talk pages. He has been warned before, several times, I leave it to you, the admins, to decide what to do with him. --] ] ] ] 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			== StoneX Group Inc. ==
	==]==
	I have blocked this editor because he's stupid, he hasn't edited an article since March, and he has launched the most pernicious attack on a valued editor. . It would be sheer idiocy to permit such obvious trolls to continue their abuse. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
			I’m concerned about the page at ]
	I fully endorse the block. Nothing but severe trolling to MONGO and other junk. ] ] 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Were you planning on ]? --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 03:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			== Permissions Removal ==
	:I agree with Tony's block... though not particularly his choice of phrasing. --] 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::(After edit conflict with CBD, who appears to express the same sentiments as I, only much more succinctly.) I know that many think that once it is evident that a user is editing disruptively, especially where such disruption appears volitional, we ought not to treat him/her with undue courtesy, and I generally agree, if only because we needn't to concern ourselves with users with whom the community no longer wish to interact (which is not, of course, to say that we ought to be actively vituperative, only that we needn't consciously to avoid making untoward remarks). I think, though, that Tony's use of the appellative ''stupid'' is gratuitious and unnecessarily provocative; in any event, even as ''stupid'' here surely refers to what Tony (as I) perceives to be puerile rather that intellectually infirm, it's not the most precise term and oughtn't to be used. AFAIK, users aren't blocked in view of their being adjudged stupid (if they're incapable of editing, that's a different story) but in view of their disruptive tendencies; Tony's unnecessary choice of word serves no purpose. ] 03:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 20:03, 9 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators

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

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	22	20	42
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	7	5	12
RfD	0	0	39	10	49
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 33 sockpuppet investigations
• 13 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 51 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 15 requested closures
• 45 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 12 Copyright problems

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request removal of PMR/Rollback

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

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

---

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

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

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

Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

---

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exact text from the source is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emoji redirect

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

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

---

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

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

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

Topic ban appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andra Febrian report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

---

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

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

Cannot draftify page

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

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

---

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

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

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

Remove PCR flag

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

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

---

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

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

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

"The Testifier" report

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

Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

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

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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

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

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

---

repost from archive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, I am glad you asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

  — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation

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

Deleted contributions request

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

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

I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hide this racist edit.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

96.230.143.43

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

Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/_dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

StoneX Group Inc.

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

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

Permissions Removal

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

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards