| Revision as of 20:39, 13 May 2014 editRich Farmbrough (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,726,081 edits →Anjaan333← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:05, 24 January 2025 edit undoA1Cafel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,984 edits →Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{pp-sock|expiry=5 May 2014|small=yes}} | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__{{Template:Active editnotice}}<!-- | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| template:User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | |
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |maxarchivesize = 700K | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |counter = 255 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(2d) | |||
| | |
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |minkeepthreads= 4 | ||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |maxarchsize= 700000 | ||
| }} | |||
| }}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!-- | |||
| --><!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | ||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| -->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}</noinclude> | |||
| == Move request moratorium at ] == | |||
| {{archivetop|Involved NAC: Consensus clearly endorses BHG's moratorium, and this is not the place to discuss content disputes. Please take it to the talk page. ] (]) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| I have just a requested move discussion at ]. It was the 12th move discussion on this page since January 2010 (which may be some sort of a record), and the second move discussion in 3 months. I have therefore imposed a 12-month moratorium on further move requests. | |||
| I don't recall doing this before, so I am unsure if I should log this somewhere ... which is why I have left a note here. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You did well IMO. ] (]) 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good call. I don't think there's a log for this, but am not positive. ]] 01:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Endorse. Right or wrong, the clear fact is that there is no consensus to move, and there probably never will be. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::When administrator rights are granted like this by administrators to other administrators, could you guys at least indicate that somewhere? I don't see any place where it says that administrators are allowed to impose a moratorium on conversations on talkpages. This is a wholly new right for the sainted class. | |||
| ::Alternatively, you could have done this as a part of discretionary sanctions, but what are the discretionary sanctions? I have no doubt that administrators like to give themselves new rights to control the community like this, but as long as it's not in ], I think you guys shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. | |||
| ::If this becomes a thing you guys feel empowered to do, it's invariably going to end up in arbitration. The whole point of Misplaced Pages's ] model is to encourage discussion. So if discussion is now to be discouraged, then what is there to be done? Note that the discussion was closed "no consensus" which necessarily defaults to ]. You are basically declaring winners by default whether you like it or not. In contrast, ] protections for one whole year are extremely rare things. Why should a move moratorium be so cavalierly entered? | |||
| ::] (]) 07:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No new powers are involved. All we would be doing is clarifying a behaviour that will be judged to be disruptive, namely a request for a move of this article. I don't agree with the title any more than you do (and probably for similar reasons), this has absolutely nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the title, and everything to do with the futility of the debate that has raged for a very long time and in the process demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that no consensus exists for a move. It's not going to happen and nobody wants to police the warring parties any longer. Enough already. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear, I don't think this conversation has ended as I don't think a coherent voice has been heard yet and that's why I'm not convinced that closing the discussion makes any sense. Keep it open for one year, if you like, and then have someone evaluate what happens. But by closing like this, you are just asking for people to stop until May 2, 2014 when they will just pick up where they left off. Why not let the conversation continue. What's the ] harm? I think you admins may not like reading such conversations to try to figure out who is right and who is wrong, but that's not a good reason to stop a conversation. It's just not. ] (]) 07:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, those who have a view different from the status quo will see the close and moratorium as a "win" granted to the other side, when clearly there was no consensus. That's not "no consensus to change". There was very strong argument in favour of change. It's just "no consensus". It's an unfortunate quirk of our policies that will now allow those who have "won" to say "You tried to change this and failed", implying that they are right. And that's not at all what has been demonstrated. A brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument and make a ruling. ] (]) 08:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The ruling would be that there is no consensus to change. The current title does not provably violate policy. Sure, it's asserted to violate policy, but that's just an opinion and it's not held by people like Jimbo, according to his stated opinion on the matter, so arguing that it is, is futile. I say this as one who strongly prefers the "myth" title. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] It's a bit tedious to spend time weighing a discussion in accordance with ], and then be told that "a brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument". AGF, please. I am quite willing to go against the numbers where the circumstances justify it. (See for example , , and ). | |||
| ::::I ''did'' weigh the arguments, discarded those which were not founded in policy, and was left with a set of good policy-based arguments on ''both'' sides. Having judged that ''both'' sides had well-founded arguments, the job of a closing admin is explicitly ''not'' to make a ] and decide which set of arguments she prefers. The admin's job is to weigh strength of policy-based argument and strength of support for them. In a case such as this, where there are broadly similar levels of support for well-founded policy-based arguments, it would be entirely wrong for an admin to impose their own choice between the two sides, and closures such as that are rightly and properly overturned at move review. | |||
| ::::Where there is no consensus, policy is maintain the status quo. In situations such as this, where there is a persistent failure to reach consensus on a choice between two sides, that confers a first-mover advantage. The community may want to consider the notion that in cases such as this of long-term lack of consensus between 2 options, pages could be cycled between the two alternatives; but no such policy exists for now, and ] prioritises stability. | |||
| ::::I think that a better way forward would be for the two sides to prepare for the end of the moratorium by planning a structured decision-making process, such as has been used for pending changes (e.g. ]). Breaking the question down and separately assessing consensus on various propositions would be much more informative for all involved, and it is more likely to produce a clear outcome than yet another round of free-form discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I understand your motivation, but there is no indication that drive-by closure and a rude "work it out yourselves, but don't bother me for a year" is the right direction here. I'm happy to start a structured conversation that would not have an outcome, but I'll note that I tried to do just this without a ] and instead others took it upon themselves to claim a ]. So if I wanted to start a discussion about how to start a structured discussion, am I banned from doing that on the talkpage? ] (]) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], a little more AGF please. This wasn't a "drive-by-closure", and I didn't say "don't bother me for a year". My concern is not for myself, but for the editors who have been dragged into rehashing the same round-in-circles freeform discussion a dozen times in 4 years. | |||
| ::::::There isn't going to be another discussion for 12 months, so best to leave it for a while. But as you get towards the end of the moratorium, you could start seeking out the editors with whom you most strongly disagree, and start a discussion with them about identifying the issues at stake on both and starting a discussion on how to address those questions, separately. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}], you didn't address my question. Am I banned from discussing how to start a structured discussion on the talkpage? ] (]) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] Hmm, "best to leave it for a while" was my attempt to answer your question, but you seem to want it spelled out in very precise terms, so I will try to make it as clear as I can be. | |||
| :You are banned from starting a substantive discussion for another 12 months. There is no point in dragging editors into a 12-month meta-discussion about what to do next year, so don't start the talks-about-talks now. I was trying not to be too prescriptive about when it might be appropriate to start talks about talks, but if you want a precise time ... I'd say that 1 months before the expiry of the moratorium would be quite enough. That's 2nd April 2015. Is that clear enough? --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, thank you, that's quite clear. Just so I am 100% understanding, no one is allowed to discuss moving or renaming that particular article until 2 May 2015 or have meta-discussions about moving or renaming that particular article until 2 April 2015. And how is this to be enforced? Should we come to you every time we see an infraction or report it to this noticeboard? Or should we simply remove the talkpage comment? Or should we archive it with a collapse box? What are the parameters by which the enforcement will occur? ] (]) 21:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], please relax a little. Honestly, all this is about is simply that repeated discussions are going nowhere and wasting editorial time and effort ... so please everybody, just drop the issue for a while and get on with other stuff. | |||
| :::If anyone starts down that path in the meantime, any other editor can close the discussion by noting the moratorium and hatting it with {{tlxs|archive top}}/{{tlxs|archive bottom}} ... and if anyone wants to contest that, ask for assistance at ]. There is no need for any enforcement to involve me rather than any other admin. | |||
| :::Hope this helps!--] <small>] • (])</small> 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *In practice such moratoriums - 3 months, 6 months, 12 months (most usually 6 months) - are not uncommon in RM closers' instructions. However they are not always of the high quality of BrownHairedGirl's moratorium here. An informal log somewhere would be helpful. ] (]) 11:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] Can you identify any other RM moratoria in place? ] (]) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd have to have a hunt, a quick request at ] would probably yield up to a dozen examples. ] (]) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not seeing the need for a centralized log - what would it be used for? In each case the RM moratorium is noted on the article talk page, where any admin about to make a change, or user about to request a change, can see it. Why would someone need to see it elsewise? I think ] applies here. ] (]) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Logging is a good idea because it guarantees transparency in what are often contentious decisions. It encourages a kind of institutional memory which is important when looking at longterm development of a situation. That's why it is done for discretionary sanctions, for example. ] (]) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I wonder if Misplaced Pages can ever find a solution to problems like this where a decision that there is no consensus to change, plus a moratorium on future attempts to change, delivers precisely the result sought by those wanting no change, and is seen by both sides as a win for them? ] (]) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I also endorse BrownHairedGirl's handling of this issue. Cutting down the pointless move discussions (which are doomed to end as "no consensus," since it always seems to be the '''same''' alternate title that's suggested) to once a year is a good idea. May I also add that this talk of "winning" and "losing" has an unfortunate taste of ] about it. -- ] (]) 04:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC) {{SPA|101.117.2.111}} | |||
| :Perhaps, but that's just dismissing a real view obviously held by many. Labelling it doesn't change that view. And maybe that repeated alternative is a bloody good one. That it's the same each time probably points to that, rather than it being wrong. Any objective observer would have to admit that those seeking change aren't a bunch of irrational bigots. Dismissing their request because it's the same each time is not helpful. The arguments against are also the same each time. Will you similarly dismiss them? ] (]) 18:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::As closer, I do not see either side of the discussion is irrational or bigoted. Nor do I see any such suggestion from the IP above. Sure, there was some ILIKEIT/IDONTLKEIT commentary on both sides, but there were also a lot of well-reasoned, policy-based arguments. However, endlessly discussing the same thing without ever reaching a consensus is not a productive use of anyone's time. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed, hence my post beginning "I wonder..." above. Even if arguments are evenly balanced on both sides, what we get from this is a status quo result. That might sound fair, but in fact it's simply one that reflects the thoughts of the side that got in first, and is diametrically opposed to that preferred by a lot of editors with well reasoned arguments. We ARE declaring an absolute winner, when in fact it's been a pretty even fight. The well regraded views of half our editors are now being suppressed by the other half. I wish there was a more even solution. ] (]) 21:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] When there is a lack of consensus (as is repeatedly the case here), any choice of title will be unfair on half the editors who expressed a view. | |||
| ::::The question of what to do has been answered in policy. See ]: ''If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.'' In this case we have an unusual situation, where the title has been broadly stable, but only due to a lack of consensus. There is a case for arguing that this extraordinarily oft-repeated evidence of a lack of consensus is a form of instability, but that has not been how I have seen the policy interpreted before. If you wanted to make the case that this long-term-no-consensus amounts to instability and therefore justfies a move to "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" ... then feel free to open a ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No BHG, your close certainly fits with policy. It cannot be criticised on that front. But I'd say that the multiple move requests clearly do demonstrate instability. Especially since there is so much drama every time a discussion arises. And it's virtually impossible to see any form of compromise that ever would please both sides. The positions seem so diametrically opposed. I just wish there was a way of demonstrating to our readers at article level that, while the current article title is the one reached according to our policies, a very significant number of editors think it's a very poor title. ] (]) 22:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So far, there have been very few attempts at an actual compromise, in the form of something that was not perfect but maybe acceptable to both sides. Trying compromise language—language that is neither ''narrative'' nor ''myth''—would work better than repeating exactly the same proposal six times (so far). Perhaps something like ] (I'm sure someone could do better) would be a more acceptable alternative than the oft-misunderstood "myth" language. You have a whole year in which to think up a compromise. Good luck, ] (]) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What we need is a discussion committee with nominees from all sides. I know exactly who I would nominate to be on it, but Misplaced Pages doesn't like such things. ] (]) 00:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] Thanks for confirming that my close fits policy, tho I wasn't actually fishing for that support! | |||
| :::::::::My suggestion related to the narrower question of what to with this persistent lack of consensus. The reason I suggested move review was purely that within the context of persistent no-consensus, I think there is a case for treating it as unstable title and threrefore reverting to the title of the first non-stub. I don't want to set to create any precedent myself, but I think that a move review on that narrow point could be interesting. Or maybe it would be better approached as an RFC on the principle? --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::? ]] (]) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No. I think now that attempts at compromise are misguided. A primary argument of many of those seeking change is that all religions should be treated the same. That such stories should all be called myths. (Even if that's not the case now.) That position will never be satisfied by a solution that doesn't treat the Christian story the same as other religions. It's pretty hard to compromise on that front. ] (]) 08:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Thank you for clarifying that you're not interested in compromise. That goes a long why to explaining '''why''' we get all these pointless repeated move requests, and shows the necessity for the moratorium. And you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension -- in fact, where other religions have a written creation narrative, the Misplaced Pages article typically uses the title of the narrative, without the word "myth." For example: ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. It seems that what you really want is to treat Christianity '''differently''' from other religions. If the moratorium doesn't calm things down, it may be necessary to take this to ArbCom, since ArbCom is empowered to determine facts, which discussion-closers are not. -- ] (]) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::ArbCom is ''not'' empowered to determine facts, although it can create its own ones. ] (]) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I have been writing in the third person, and not mentioning the thoughts of specific editors. I have been trying to describe the broader problems with this debate. You wrote about me, rudely. Fuck off. ] (]) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Anonymous user, your examples imply that equal treatment for the Christian creation myth would be to name it after a myth's title. However, that would not work since ] already exists (] alone is a disambig), with this particular article referring specially to the creation myth in its first couple chapters. Creation myths without titles have names like ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and so on from ] to ]. Those are the articles which proponents of ''Genesis creation myth'' wish to be consistent with. Though since their form specifically is ''<nowiki></nowiki> creation myth'', an argument might be made that ''Judeochristian creation myth'' or ''Abrahamic creation myth'' is more in line with them. ~ ] (]) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::<small>Let's not start debating the title again here. This discussion is just about the moratorium. ]] (]) 08:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Let me get this straight...brown haired girl 'impossed' a moratorium? She can't do that. Seriously, this is bull(self edited).--] (]) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I have imposed moratoriums in move request closes on occasion, most famously after the first major Chelsea Manning move discussion. I was asked at that time how much authority I had to do so, and I replied then (as I would contend now) that any administrator has as much authority to take such an action as the community is willing to recognize. This is informed by the reasoning behind the decision to impose one. I'm sure that an administrator who imposed, for example, a ten year moratorium on future discussion of a proposal would not be taken very seriously. A year-long moratorium is probably on the outside of what is feasible, but is entirely understandable given exceptional circumstances. I would imagine that such an imposition, like any other part of the close, is subject to consideration in a move review. I would definitely support having a single centralized page listing all move moratoriums in place at any given time. ] ] 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If any editor wants to open a move review, then the moratorium would of course be up for review too. If the community chooses to overturn it or alter it's length or whatever, that's fine by me. | |||
| ::My concern was simply to break the extraordinarily cycle of rapidly-repeated inconclusive discussions which rehash the same arguments at enormous length. If the community wants that cycle to continue, so be it; or if it wants to find some completely different way of resolving this dispute, that's even better. --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Had I known you imposed a moratorium with the Manning case I would never have accepted/supported you to be a part of the Clinton closure. This isn't an abuse of tools since you didn't use any, but no one has to recognize anything just because..."you say so". And I do not. This is not a consensus discussion. Any such discussion would take place on the article talk page. Unless arbcom has decided to make such a moratorium as part of official sanctions this is little more than bullying others and using your position as an admin to take advantage of a situation. there is no policy or guideline that allows this. Seriously.--] (]) 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: @], I think you have misunderstood me. BrownHairedGirl did not impose a moratorium at Chelsea Manning; I did. She was not involved in that closure (and I was not involved in this one, or in the HRC closure). ] ] 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wow...that was really hard to find this post after opening the editing window. Thanks for explaining that and sorry for the mix up. keeping who said what straight is becoming something of a headache now.--] (]) 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Endorse''' BrownHairedGirl's action per DISRUPT - always the same apples-to-oranges argument, nothing new the last several go's. We need to put apples (significantly widely held beliefs with extensive cited controversy about the genre) into the same labeling with oranges (nearly extinct beliefs with hardly any cited controversy about the genre), all for the sake of "consistency" - a slippery slope. ] /]/ 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''comment''' if we are considering some sort of moratorium, then the debate should have been more structured and the close some more detailed discussion of numbers and policy rather than just "close as no consensus", which the last two do - this just emphasises a first move advantage in these type of situations. I'd suggest a more detailed rationale and structured discussion with broader input like some other closes - 12 Requested Moves suggests it is a topic which deserves a more detailed and structured close and ''then'' a moratorium. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I agree. Like: ''All such discussions on this page are temporarily suspended until further notice. Interested parties are to repair to ] to in good faith explore compromises or the basis and wording (with respect to background of the dispute, counterpoints, policy and sources) for a fully laid out community wide RfC to be held on a neutral page and widely advertised." Or something like that. ] (]) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm also concerned with the simple "close as no consensus" and the first move advantage. In something like this we need a much more detailed analysis. "No consensus" often seems like an easy out to me and can allow a minority to always have their way. ] (]) 11:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse.''' This is a huge waste of time for the community to debate these things over and over. The Arbcom does similar, see for example the Infobox case. This used to be a standard type of closing comment for repetitious RMs, I don't know why BrownHairedGirl is suddenly get so much flack for it. If someone has a burning desire to discuss this yet again, or has new reasons to request a move, they can always bring their reasons to the talk page or ]. —] (]) 03:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': A separate discussion of the validity of the moratorium is being held at ] It doesn't seem to be helpful to have two discussions at the same time, especially if they are surveys gauging community support. ]] (]) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is a discussion specific to that article. What I'd like to see here is someone pointing to a policy or discussion that gives any single user (with the ''possible'' exception of Jimbo) the right to unilaterally declare ''any'' discussion closed for 12 months. ] (]) 04:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, this discussion is also specific to that article. ] (]) 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong endorse'''. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings, this issue has not been settled and we're ], not ]. These discussions that have been closed for a year have not been resolved in the previous 4 years and previous 12 discussions; it's time to move on. ] (]) 04:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I can't actually endorse, as I clearly object to anyone imposing sanctions on their own, but now that the discussion on the article talk page has been closed by an uninvolved admin and this is now the centralized discussion (if this is actually where all these moratorium discussions take place we may need to move the Hillary discussion if it is still open) I would certainly !vote (as I did in the other discussion) to '''Support a moratorium'''. This is not about beliefs, at least it shouldn't be. It is about whether or not the community feels that there is enough consensus to ask that no further move requests be made for a period of time. I generally feel 6 months is a good period, but if 6 months...why not a year. I do, however hope this will be added as a dislaimer on the talk page so that other users not seeing this discussion or not around at this time will have the proper notifications to not start another move discussion.--] (]) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Endorse the actions by BHG and the moratorium itself. I strongly support a move to creation myth, but that's not the issue here. The issue is disruption of Misplaced Pages with continual going-in-circles move request which we can do without. The question whether an admin can/may unilaterally impose a moratorium are understandable, but in the end just rule-wonkery. If there were significant dispute over the moratorium itself (but there isn't) we would be in a different situation, but we aren't, which renders the meta-issue moot. Spare the discussion for when there is actually something to discuss. ] (]) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. I noted on Jimbo's talk page that perhaps things like an RM moratorium should be discussed and allowed to gain consensus prior to implementation, but putting the cart before the horse in this case won't change the end result. The RMs have obviously long since stopped being productive, and it is time that the involved editors spend some time on other things. They can always reconvene in a year for another round of "all talk, no action". ]] 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' At some point, enough is enough. BHG did the right thing. Reopening the same move proposal just 3 months after it had failed for the 11th time fits under the broad definition of disruptive editing, and fashioning a reasonable remedy for disruption should be within an uninvolved admins discretion. Maybe people could constructively spend the next 12 months trying to find a process that could lead to a compromise.--] (]) 23:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' It seems seriously odd that an admin can impose a moratorium on the justification of "enough already" and '''then''' get community consensus. Not to mention that this basically kills off all chance of compromise for twelve months, since it can't even be discussed in any way until that time.] (]) 23:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apparently quite a few people would agree with you. One could look at it that way, or perhaps the alternative is to view it as a ] issue, especially in light of the overwhelming consensus we have here to create a moratorium. Perhaps outcomes so severe (don't even ''talk'' about it for a year) ought to be discussed first in any case, but at that point the only question is should that have happened first. I see very few people questioning if it (the moratorium) should have happened at all. ] (]) 23:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It sets a strange precedent. Could an administrator shut down this discussion on the basis that they felt it had gone on long enough and preclude all discussion of the topic for a year? I should hope not. ] (]) 23:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course I should hope not as well -- the first time. But we're not talking about the first time. We're talking about an argument that has gone on a dozen times, each time lasting weeks or months, over the course of the last 4 years. "No consensus" has been reached, nor is consensus likely to be reached in the near future without some form of structure being imposed on the discussion other than the freeform course that it always takes. | |||
| ::::The same people who are voting "Oppose" for the moratorium would be the first people to vote to shutter a discussion per SNOW were someone to restart it, mere days after its unresolved closure. All the moratorium does is saves a step in that process: any such discussion has been preemptively SNOWed until it expires. ] (]) 00:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would just add that BHG promptly brought her moratorium here for review. Since, as you say, it would be completely inappropriate to restart the discussion this soon, were the moratorium to be rejected, no one would be inconvenienced in the slightest.--02:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I have previously seen admins who included such moratoriums in their closes say that they were advisory, rather than binding. That seems to me the correct understanding. There is nothing in the policy on Requested Moves or elsewhere, as far as I can see, that gives admins the power to unilaterally ban RMs for a specified. I would agree that people should take a break here before recurring to the issue, but a year seems an unreasonably long time to me - six months might be a reasonable suggestion. ] (]) 00:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Regardless of the merits of the arguments to be made on either side, the ''behavior'' of repeatedly nominating something for a move request over and over becomes problematic. Such a moratorium frees up editors to use their skills improving other articles rather than rehashing the exact same stale arguments with the exact same group of combatants over and over again. This moratorium is a good idea. --]''''']''''' 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' While I don't disagree with the moratorium itself, the principles behind it and the precedents set by it are seriously flawed. ] (]) 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' 12 move requests since 2010 is far too many. After reading the discussions, it seems to me that editors involved have better places to devote their time. So in place of topic bans, blocks or whatever for being disruptive, a moratorium is probably the best course. Moratoriums are placed by closers in various circumstances, and this one clearly fits the criteria. Thanks. ] (]) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. A dozen move requests since 2010 is ], as is making the exact same request just three months after the previous one failed. BHG was correct in placing the moratorium and made the correct call to seek approval here. '''] <sup><span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Go Bruins!</span></sup>''' 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' By bringing the matter here BHG is making it clear that the moratorium is community supported (if this discussion so chooses; otherwise there is no moratorium). Accordingly, objections based on the horror of an admin imposing a solution do not apply. Time spent debating whether BHG filled in the correct forms is time wasted—what counts is whether it would be desirable for move requests to be debated every few weeks until eternity (''no'', it wouldn't—any decision would be better than that). ] (]) 10:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Perpetual debate''' tries one's patience. It drags people into a debate almost unwillingly. This becomes a matter of endurance. I agree that someone should put the brakes on the reopening of this debate with a frequency that seems unreasonable to me. I guess I '''endorse'''. Disclosure: I am one who opposes the proposed move. ] (]) 11:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' I recently closed one RfC endorsing a moratorium because it was clear that the same old arguments had been repeated ''ad infinitum'', & nothing would be accomplished by hashing them over & again except to exhaust one or the other party & achieve a change as if the discussion were a ]. (I set it indefinite on the basis that if someone had a point or argument that hadn't been expressed, then the discussion could be reopened; so the moratorium could be permanent -- or a few days.) Yes, consensus does change -- sometimes for the better, sometimes the worse -- but repeated restating of the same points only serves to harden opposing viewpoints, not to create a new consensus. People need to remember that silence & reflection are also part of the process. -- ] (]) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - It may be uncertain whether individual admins can impose moratoria but a decision at WP:AN certainly can do so and that's where we are at now. A dozen move requests since 2010 certainly passes the barrier on whether a moratorium is reasonable. Would it seriously be beneficial to the encyclopedia to look forward to a new move proposal every three months from now on? There is some history of moratoria being imposed at ] in contentious article naming disputes, for instance though that was under Arbcom authority which is different from a community decision. ] (]) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - No point in debating this over and over. Moratorium might be a good idea at ] as an alternative to arbitration. ] (]) 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - too much time is wasted on repeating the same request over and over. ] (]) 21:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' - This does not set a precedent. Admins have often laid down conditions on articles. And there are a small number of articles that seem to have endless and unproductive move discussions. I support a 12-month ban on moves on this article, and a more general (but shorter) one on initiating repeated requests on all articles. ] (]) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong endorse''' - Neither editors nor admins on this project are robots, and I thoroughly appreciate it when an admin takes what could be a controversial action in order to do the right thing and quell the problem. Sure, they take a risk when they do so, and since we're quick to jump on them when their judgment seems wrong, we should be equally quick to stand behind them and thank them when they are right. ] (]) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' This will sweep a difficult issue under the carpet nicely, for a while, and please those who support the status quo. But what will be different next time, whenever it happens? ] (]) 03:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **A convincing new argument, which gains community consensus should do it. A massive infusion of Non-involved input would be good. Both sides need time and space to muster new sources and approaches to argue this to a decisive conclusion. This is just attrition at the moment. A moratorium system would dovetail into this method. I do see a way through. Just not every 3 months or so. Its just groundhog day. ] (]) 04:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***How about coming up with a different proposed name the next time a move is requested? Perhaps begin with a discussion of possible alternatives?--] (]) 11:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****I can't see how that can be a solution. One of the arguments of those who want change is that all religious creation stories should be treated the same. (I know some will want to argue against that, but this isn't the place to do it. I am not presenting the argument. I am describing it.) There's no point asking someone who thinks that it should be called a myth, because other articles are, to propose a different name. That's not asking them to compromise. that's asking them to drop their case completely. ] (]) 11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****I have no doubt that many who support the move are so uncompromising, but perhaps some supporters might accept a different approach, and thereby build more of a consensus, rather than the present standoff. If it really is all or nothing, then perhaps a one year moratorium isn't long enough.--] (]) 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******This is not the place to discuss the content dispute. ] (]) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == RFPP is once more flooded, mops to hand == | |||
| Another week, another "oh right, RFPP is a thing" reminder. Currently we're at 52 requests pending so we're in need of a little attention over there and probably something else so we don't have to post something at AN every few weeks it happens. ] (]) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I took care of a bunch of them. FYI, admins being in short supply is hardly a problem unique to RFPP. --] (]) 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The rest have also been taken care of so thanks to those mucking in. I know admins being in short supply isn't unique to RFPP but would be nice if we could get some admins who'd have a regular look see every 24 hours or so to prevent backlogs of requests for something I see as fairly crucial to the wiki. ] (]) 08:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It finals week for most university students. I would expect some delay in admin tasks until mid-may. --] | ] 19:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Done some - more to do. Gotta do stuff elsewhere so anyone wanna do a few..is good. ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Askahrc == | |||
| I would like an uninvolved admin to notify {{userlinks|Askahrc}} per ]. The user was minimallty active for some time then returned in 2013, since when they have been showing obsessive support of the agendas of ] and his supporter/apologist ]. The views of both are ]. This user now purports to ''mediate'' in the "dispute" between {{userlinks|SAS81}} (an openly declared media representative for Chopra) and world+dog. ] is interesting too. This user appears to have lost interest in Misplaced Pages then returned after a hiatus to ]. | |||
| SAS81 has engaged in ] because he does not like the sound of the word "no". This is expected and normal under the circumstances. Several users in good standing are counselling him on the Misplaced Pages way of doing things, and this is ongoing. I mention this user only for completeness: I do not, at this time, advocate sanctions against him. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Askahrc has already been notified of discretionary sanctions, and indeed has already been sanctioned for harassing users from behind a sockpuppet and for wasting the community's time. | |||
| :There is a ] on him at AE, with "a low bar for reporting newer disruption". ], AE is likely a better place for this. I have evidence to submit about the recent continuation of his attacks against me (I was the one who exposed his sockpuppeting/harassing activities). ] 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure I understand the cause of this notification. I've been intermittently active (including long hiatuses during the discussion over Sheldrake) for many years and have always tried to keep a neutral, reasonable tone to my contributions. I've never shown support for the agenda of Rupert Sheldrake (I was arguing against the ], ''not'' for Sheldrake's views) or Deepak Chopra. If you disagree, please show a diff. | |||
| ::I have edited numerous other pages besides Sheldrake (which I haven't touched in months) and Chopra, and was introduced to the Chopra issue independently via the BLP board, where the exact same referencing help as I did for ]. On Chopra I've been to establish to determine which sources would be most valid and applicable, namely focusing on independent secondary sources. Far from endorsing his agenda, I have over existing secondaries. I have been from very different view points and we've been making . All of my suggestions have been for a ''stronger'' emphasis on reliable sources, ''not'' a relaxing of ]. | |||
| ::I know we've had in the past, ], but I honestly don't see the issue here. Also, what do the SPI's Vzaak keeps pushing against me have to do with this? He got me warned once, then tried it again and ]. It's frustrating to try to contribute in good faith and be called "obsessed" over something I've never once spoken in favor of, let alone have bring up this SPI issue. ] (]) 01:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], see above about bringing up the SPI (over and over again), but otherwise what "continuing attacks" are you referring to? I've done nothing against you since bringing up my issues about you continually bringing cases against me (], ], ) at AR. I honestly would like nothing more than to leave you alone and vice-versa. Voluntary IBAN? | |||
| :::And yet again, '''''what disruption?''''' I'm mediating a discussion on citing secondary sources, how is that disruptive in any way? Let it go, Vzaak, I don't want to fight with you. ] (]) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I'm a little unclear about what is happening here. What is the problem actually? All I can add is that the Capn came into help on the BLP noticeboard and chimed in on my COI noticeboard and offered to help mediate. I also do not agree with Guy's assesment that I have a hard time being told 'no'. I was not aware he was in charge I was under the impression that Misplaced Pages is collaborative and Capn appears like a collaborative editor while Guy seems very angry that I am here. Capn has been very helpful in a very difficult situation, I wish there were a few more like him. ] (]) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@Askahrc responded to a request on the BLP notice board and has attempted to <strike>mediate</strike> what had become a contentious article. His actions and behaviour have been appropriate and neutral, and he has provided a somewhat even tone to a sometimes less than pleasant environment. I see no reason to have brought him here. (] (]) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :: @Vzaak: I agree, but I am involved so someone else needs to do it. | |||
| :: @Littleolive oil: No they have not, because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area. Whoever should mediate (and actually mediation is not necessary, the iussue is just that the Chjopra media machine is trying to buff up the article), it should not and cannot be Askahrc. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I do not think that {{user|Askahrc}} has the basic level of ] required to mediate. This may be due to the ]. Either way, a bizarre and ineffective mediation attempt that will inevitably follow unless he is stopped is just going to create ] for the sake of it. ] (]) 11:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|JzG}} Like anyone, you can submit a case to AE if there is sufficient disruption, with the "low bar" in mind. I haven't followed the recent Chopra events enough to address that. I was alarmed, however, to see Askahrc casting an aspersion on the Chopra talk page. If someone submits an AE I will add to it, otherwise we give ]. | |||
| ::::However the issue with ] is it is already getting long. Askahrc uses a sockpuppet to bully users, then brings an arbcom case about bullying. Askahrc promulgates battleground polemics on-wiki and off-wiki, then brings an arbcom case about battleground behavior. After being sanctioned for wasting the community's time with the first arbcom request, Askahrc submits a second time-wasting arbcom request. After arbitrators tell him to use AE in the first arbcom request, Askahrc brings another arbcom request without using AE (perhaps because there is a tabled AE request on him with a "low bar" for reporting future disruptions). After being caught harassing users with a sockpuppet, Askahrc uses AE and a formal arbcom request as a platform to cast evidence-free ] against the person who caught him, and now after a hiatus Askahrc resumes it on the Chopra talk page. ] 14:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@Guy. Askahrc had edited the Deepak Chopra article before he responded at the BLP NB? I don't believe so. I have no comment on what is happening on the Chopra article at this time but, I think we can agree to disagree. | |||
| :::::I am differentiating between an editor who comes into an article as either an informal mediator or formal mediator per our DR system and one who is attempting to steer to a neutral ground, (Askharc) maintains civility and so far is not pushing an agenda on to the other editors. As an aside, I am always put off and become suspicious when an editor's past is dragged up in a dispute as is happening here as a means to support an attack on that editor. Such an action intended or not dirties the water so we can't see what if any the real issues are at this point in time, on this article. Whether the editor is successful at mediating a situation is not the issue. Mediation with even the most experienced mediators is often unsuccessful in my experience. What is at issue are the allegations made which I believe are unfounded.(] (]) 14:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :Thank you, ], I appreciate you weighing in. I've shown numerous diffs documenting what we're working on in Chopra, while I still haven't seen any showing supposed disruption. A few rejoinders: | |||
| *'''@]''' I cast no aspersions on Chopra, I clarified an editors incongruous mention of SPI, and have backed it up with diffs. Speaking of aspersions, you are repeatedly misrepresenting events to suit your audience (and I think you could fit in your failed AE's "low bar for future disruptions" quote a few dozen more times, but be careful not to bring up ]). You contradict yourself by saying that when the first arbreq was tabled I never sought the requested AE, ''then'' mention me harassing people with an an evidence-free AE. The truth is that I ''did'' ], it was filled with diffs of evidence and the admins agreed that the people it was brought against were acting inappropriately and needed to be sanctioned. Finally, you admit that you haven't actually read the progress on the Chopra page, but are apparently just endorsing this AN out of an assumption that ''anything'' I'm working on must be disruptive. You got me with one SPI and have been gunning for me since, even arguing with an admin when your ]. Please back off, Vzaak, this is inappropriate behavior. | |||
| *'''@]''', claiming that I have a mental disorder that is typified by gross incompetence, extreme ignorance and even brain damage is a clear violation of ], something you've been ]. Again, you claim that mediation will inevitably become "bizarre and ineffective" unless I am stopped, without showing any diffs, examples or evidence of my supposedly outlandish behavior, nor of being familiar with the Chopra talk page. | |||
| *'''@]''', you said ''"because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area,"'' which is factually incorrect. I've never worked on the Chopra page before the BLP, I've never been sanctioned for POV-pushing and despite people like Barney (]) asserting otherwise, I have never seen a single diff showing any POV-pushing on my part. I chimed in briefly on the Sheldrake page, but pretty much all of my effort there was insisting editors needed to be more civil and stop issuing AN's, AE's and SPI's against the people who disagreed with them. The result was that I've been since hit with AN's, AE's and SPI's. Take what you will from that, but my participation on WP has always been to increase neutrality and sourcing, NOT to push a POV that I don't even agree with. | |||
| :Basically, I feel like I'm being presented as the boogeyman, but no one has actually presented any evidence of these grave disruptions I'm supposedly involved in. Instead I'm looking at assertions, personal attacks and more assertions. I'm getting really tired of logging in to pursue a hobby and dealing with senseless hostility from the same exact people over and over again. With all due respect to those involved, spend your time making WP better instead of following people around and trying to get them banned. ] (]) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only drama I see being caused is by a number of the editors commenting here who keep on pushing this battleground mentality and don't want to drop it. In my COIN, an uninvolved admin even weighed in on the activity of 'skeptics' on the page and mentioning directly that it makes the community look Capn agreed to help mediate in that COI because this admin was asking if there was any uninvolved editors who could help bring a balance. Capn offered. Other editors have PM'd me telling me they don't want to get too involved because of this harassment. In the meantime I'm still getting pinged and one of the editors here (vzaak) who is not even involved in editing the article is bringing up some conspiracy plot they believe either I or capn is involved ]. I'd like to offer a solution to this rather bizarre environment. Let's just focus on content. If we do that then problem is solved. ] (]) 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I simply asked why you brought me into it, and the answer you proffered didn't make sense. I had a right to ask. I didn't say you were part of a conspiracy. | |||
| :::Regarding your concern about "skeptics" looking bad, the issue is that Askahrc had previously been sockpuppeting in the role of a "skeptic" harassing users and issuing threats in an effort to make "skeptics" look bad. On the Deepak Chopra page, he has continued his effort to discredit me as retribution for catching him sockpuppeting. This behavior is not acceptable. | |||
| :::Incidentally, I have never called myself a "skeptic" and I don't associate with any such groups. The primary problem I see with the "Guerrilla Skeptics" is their stupid name. If a group of regular, non-misbehaving Misplaced Pages editors call themselves "The Misbehaving Misplaced Pages Editors", and then they roll their eyes when people accuse them of misbehaving, that is stupid. ] 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Barney's statement suggesting Askhahrc is suffering from a mental disorder is unacceptable and unconscionable and most especially in the context of this discussion.(] (]) 18:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :::: {{user|Littleolive oil}} has apparently taken {{user|askahrc}}'s bizarre accusations at face value without clearly reading what I originally wrote. To clarify, I have not, never have, and never will accuse anyone, especially {{user|askahrc}}, of being mentally ill. I do not really care what illnesses {{user|askahrc}} has. What I do accuse {{user|askahrc}} of is rank incompetence, contrary to ], and lacking even the basic competence to understand that he's not competent. This is what ] says - ]). This is with great justification as outlined by {{user|Vzaak}}. | |||
| :::: Actually, I believe I was being extremely generous in accusing {{user|askahrc}}, and assuming good faith that he's not just a thoroughbred troll, just completely incompetent. | |||
| :::: I believe this is the worst case I have ever seen of a user falsely whining "personal attacks" when confronted with basic damning evidence against his anti-consensus behaviour. In this I assume that in good faith {{user|Askahrc}} is not deliberately lying, but just not competent enough to distinguish fair commentary on his capabilities from personal attacks. ] (]) 18:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Yes. I'm familiar with both the condition and what you wrote. You suggested here an editor may be suffering from what is a mental illness, "This may be due to the ]." | |||
| I assume now you did not mean to suggest mental illness. You might consider retracting the comment. I might add that suggesting another Misplaced Pages editor is completely incompetent is a lot to take on oneself. (] (]) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| Since no uninvolved admins have weighed in and this has become yet another tit-for-tat squabble among the , I suggest this be closed. If there is evidence of misconduct, present the diffs at AN/I, I'm not sure why this dispute was brought to AN. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : @{{user|Little olive oil}} - the ] is not a mental illness. Please stop displaying your ignorance by claiming that it is or might be construed as such. | |||
| : It is also usually considered best if a "mediator" in a dispute has the confidence of all parties involved. Since {{user|Askahrc}} clearly doesn't have the confidence of those broadly as "sceptics", it is clear that he can't and shouldn't be getting involved. ] (]) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Barney: Dunning-Kruger can overlap in some with or as anosognosia which can in turn overlap with psychosis. At any rate although I guess its better not to comment on the editor but stick to the edits. Askahrc has the right to be involved as any of us do. As I said above. I did not see him as a mediator (and I have struck the word since it was causing confusion) per our DR but simply as a neutral-toned editor. (] (]) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| Apparently Askahrc claims to be "uninvolved" because he has not edited the Chopra article. He has, however, been involved with the parallel article on Rupert Sheldrake: Sheldrake has been prominently supported by Chopra and the two reference each other, Chopra holding up Sheldrake as an example of trying to "bridge the gap between science and religion" (a little like trying to bridge the gap between Sakatchewan and sasquatch: a futile and meaningless exercise). The two are inextricably linked, and the common thread is extremely relevant in that in both cases the problem is the rejection of the subject's conjectures by the reality-based community. That plus a prior ArbCom sanction indicate that Askahrc is absolutely not a proper person to even offer to mediate, and definitely will not be accepted by a number of those with whom the purported mediation is required. In fact, no mediation is required, only patient explanation of why Misplaced Pages will never portray Chopra as a medical visionary until credible scientific evidence is produced to support his beliefs. It's taken medical science a century to slay the ghost of superstition, vitalism and magical thinking, Chopra basically represents the undead corpse of this unlamented triumvirate. That's not our problem to fix. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, beautifully written, but an opinion. While we can respect the opinion we don't have to base an article on it. You are right though in that Saskatchewan and Sasguatch are not related although there may be Sasquatch in Saskatchewan. They'd have to fight off the grizzlies, though.(] (]) 22:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :::Correction, ], I don't have ''your'' confidence, the discussion on Chopra (of which I'm just one member) is progressing nicely toward a reasoned consensus. There have been no problems there, but you wouldn't know since you haven't been involved in the discussion. Do you have anything productive to add besides insults and calling users ignorant and incompetent? | |||
| :::And ], I've never tried to assert that Sheldrake or Chopra (btw, one mention of Sheldrake by Chopra does not make the two inextricably linked) are medical visionaries, medically mainstream or anything related to the unlamented ghosts of superstition you brought up in your ] speech. Also, the ArbCom you reference sanctioned me on the first round of SPI's vzaak brought against me, ''not'' on POV issues (he brought that too, but it was tabled for a complete lack of evidence). | |||
| :::I'm so tired of this nonsensical-talking-in-circles, I don't come on here to fight. ''You keep claiming I'm POV-pushing, then I ask for POV diffs, and then you bring up something completely unrelated, then I ask for POV diffs, then you go on about the grand scheme of things, then I ask for POV diffs, then your associates pop in with PA's, then I ask for POV diffs, then you claiming I'm POV-pushing again...'' For crying out loud, take a breath and look around! I've been working civilly and productively with editors who share our perspective (yes, '''ours''', if you'd take a second to read my posts) to find consensus in organizing secondary sources by reliability in an objective method. It's preposterous that this is contentious! ] (]) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thanks {{user|Askahrc}} - I don't present myself as some kind of spokesman, but I'm confident that most of the ]-fighters from ] basically agree with me that you shouldn't get involved in this. I don't want to name drop, it's terribly unbecoming. ] (]) 23:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} PLEASE STOP! This is so juvenile and childish and disappointing to see Misplaced Pages operate this way. It's not hard to see what is going on here. If I never came to Dr. Chopra's article, I don't think anyone would be going after the capn. Considering that Guy, Barney the Barney and Vzaak all seem to want him to go once he started to help. Yet neither Guy, Barney or Vzaak are making any contributions in the discussion other than accusations, soapbox speeches and aspersions, they are simply NOT HERE to contribute! | |||
| ] why you're involving yourself here when you claim to be so uninvolved is rather unscrupulous. No one mentioned anything about any skeptical groups, and I find the claim that you do not consider yourself a sceptic to be a very dubious considering your contribution history. At least Guy and Barney are upfront, I know where they stand. And I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting our discussion, you did accuse me on my talk page of withholding information which by definition would make me apart of this conspiracy your so convinced and excited about. Also, since you decided to single yourself out and bring your own actions to my attention, ''this conspiracy theory trip your on about Dr Chopra is over the top and bordering on something I would rather not mention.'' I noticed that you recently accused the capn somehow of being in cahoots with Dr Chopra regarding the Ralph Abrams issue???? are you serious? And I see you have a hard time letting that conspiracy theory go as well, plastering Misplaced Pages with this gibberish.], ] ]. | |||
| PLEASE STOP THIS ALL OF YOU! I am here to help diffuse a , I'm not naive to the environment here. When I see editors gang up on the one or two editors from the outside that are trying to help and the levels of effort they make to harm them sends chills up my spine and makes me question how Misplaced Pages could ever operate this way. Very sad to see this! ] (]) 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Uninvolved admin(s), please either weigh in or close this case. Otherwise, the bickering will continue which is not a profitable use of this space or your time. Accusations without evidence are just that, accusations. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|SAS81}} This is off the rails. Stop accusing me of this "conspiracy" stuff. You have seemingly misinterpreted effectively all of what I have said recently and in the past. You are linking to things that are manifestly not conspiracies, like the WMF server cache bug issue. It is not some "wild idea" that Askahrc engaged in deception by using a sockpuppet to harass editors. That is a formal finding logged at the arbcom page on pseudoscience. ] 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I appreciate your support, but I'd recommend you keep your distance from this debacle. I'm happy to help you (or anyone who asks) with sourcing, but as a COI you're probably going to be held to a different standard and I'd feel bad if you got roped in and started getting slammed with vague accusations like I've been recently. They've repeatedly gotten hostile against ] and all she did was comment that they were being uncivil. | |||
| ::I urge you to not give up on WP policies and continue operating openly and honestly. Be careful of getting involved in third party disputes like this as it will ''not'' help your case, even if what you read is outlandish. As a COI, it may not be helpful to ''my'' case, either. I have faith in WP procedures; this trio have no evidence, argument or position other than their personal dislike of me and I trust any given admin (aside from Guy, of course) to see that. | |||
| ::@] you aren't addressing the fact that after the SPI (which concluded with just "Fairly Convincing") you kept accusing me of socking, ] until an admin told you to stop. Nor that your associate ] for ] and ]. | |||
| ::I'm through contributing to this meaningless wall of back & forth. I've tried to answer questions, be civil and explain the situation, but it appears useless. If someone has a question, please ask me, otherwise I'll spend my time doing something useful. ] (]) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Askahrc, it is not right for you to continue to cast evidence-free ]. If you wish to disentangle yourself, stop casting aspersions. I never simply "accuse" anyone of socking, as you suggest. Rather, when there is ''evidence'' of socking, I file an SPI. Two administrators concluded that you were socking because of the ''evidence'' showing that you were socking. Regarding the second SPI, there was ample ''evidence'' for a checkuser request, and indeed a checkuser was run. You now claim that an admin told me to "stop". No administrator said any such thing (stop what?). You have been given many warnings: cease casting evidence-free aspersions. By contrast, the SPIs I have filed are backed up by solid ''evidence''. If you have ''evidence'' of misconduct on my part, take it to ] immediately. ] 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't know if it would be considered relevant, but a note on my talk page indicates that Askahrc is collaborating with Tunmbleman and suggest that this campaign is intentionally disruptive. Make of it what you will. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Reluctantly poking my head back in...'' @], that note was left by an editor who was ] for misrepresentation, incivility and PA's about the very issue they're bringing up again. ] (]) 08:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That conversation on ] called "Cap’n McDouche" is disturbing as editor ] is seeking collaborators and ideas for ways to get ] kicked off Misplaced Pages and s/he also badmouths Olive and myself. Publicly conspiring to drive editors one has differences with off Misplaced Pages is hounding and disruptive and should be discouraged. It also confirms what The Cap'n has been saying about a small group of editors persistently seeking ways to get him blocked for no other reason than they disagree with him. @76 has already received one block for his behavior towards The Cap'n but admins should be aware of this plotting. They admittedly want to get The Cap'n blocked, they are just looking for a reason...they have tried several times but have not succeeded. I don't think any editor should have to put up with this. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I agree, but there is also an external problem related to Tumbleman and Askahrc's rather openly stated agenda to achieve more sympathetic coverage of Sheldrake (which of course relates directly to Chopra). I think we are seen on-wiki facets of an off-wiki dispute, which is further complicated by the existence of a long-term on-wiki dispute, use of sockpuppets (including by Askahrc) and meatpuppetry. In short, the whole thing is a hideous mess. Normally I'd just have nuked the anon comment but it does set the spidey-sense tingling. That siad, you are right, it is blatant trolling and I have now removed it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Per ], ] received a two week block and there is now a two month interaction ban between ] and ]. I realize that it doesn't look like this post will lead to any admin action against any editor but I thought it should be updated to reflect the result of the related ARE case. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin needed at ] == | |||
| {{Done}} | |||
| The article is supposed to be about MS Windows, but the whole thing is currently reading (at least on my machine) as a thing related to WP:HATNOTE. Not sure what happened there, but it definitely needs a looksee, and one form an admin because the page is protected at the moment. ] (]) 02:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Everything looks normal to me. Please try refreshing your cache or purging the page. -- ] (]) 02:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was because of an edit to ], now fixed. As Diannaa says, ] should fix any articles that are still using the broken version. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{archive top|Hoax article deleted, hoaxer has not returned. ] (]) 10:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello. This article has been speedy delete in and , as encyclopedic irrelevant and hoax. I notice that here was placed a , but instead an . In my home wiki it´s not allowed to do that, but I'm not familiar with the processes in the english wiki, so I prefer to inform about here. Regards, <span style="background: #EECCFF;">] <small>(])</small></span> 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) '''PS''': Looking more close at the , the page has already been propose and every time the template has been change or eliminated by the user who created the article or an IP. Please, an admin need to look at the article. | |||
| :It is permitted to remove a BLP-prod template if a reference is provided that verifies what the article says. The reference added here does not. Rather than simply replace the BLP-prod, I will nominate this at ]. ] (]) 07:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done, see ]. Thank you, {{u|Frei sein}}. ] (]) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said there, this is borderline CSD#G3. Not sure what that says about the editor. ] | ] | ] 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I reckon, let sleeping hoaxers lie, unless he makes a nuisance of himself by removing the AfD template or vandalising the discussion; then block as ]. His Spanish block is a username block: ''Viola la política de nombres de usuario.'' His first name may be related to ''pedo'' = a fart, ''pedorrero'' = one given to farting, which my dictionary marks as ''tabu'', but I can't make anything of his second. My wife thinks it may mean something rude in Basque. ] (]) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Skookum1 again again == | |||
| I've reverted the collapse at ]; closure may be appropriate, as we weren't getting anywhere, but the closure header is not a possible interpretation of what needs to be done, even by {{u|Skookum1}}, himself. — ] ] 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not often I find myself agreeing with Arthur Rubin. I have stricken the last part of the NAC closure. The admins in question were acting in their admin capacity and on the request of other users. They are to be commended for attempting to take on this messy and thankless chore. —] (]) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Point of Order: It is undesirable to alter the archived version of the discussion. Best practices would suggest unarchiving the discussion with a new subsection at the bottom of it disputing the closure. But if the thread is to remain in the archives, it is best to leave it in an unaltered state. Rgrds. --] (]) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is undesirable for such an absurd comment close a discussion, indicating there may be some support for it. If '''you''' want to reopen it, that's fine, although the probable consequence would be for Skookum1 to be banned, which I do not want. — ] ] 05:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Forgeten vandalism == | |||
| {{archive top|the "vandal" was admin {{u|Feezo}} and the OP has been blocked as the latest in a string of sockpuppets who have targetted this article. ] (]) 21:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| *I found forgeten vandalism on article. Some vandal with username Feezo removed category, links to other articles and he deleted part of article with informations about new series. I cannot edit this page because it protected.--] (]) 18:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Vandal? You're sure? ] -] 19:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Anjaan333 == | |||
| Hi, I'm reporting this user to ANI because they continue to be disruptive. I previously reported {{u|Anjaan333}} for edit warring . User kept trying to edit ] to his/her preferred vision, failed to participate in discussions, failed to respond to warnings, failed to properly explain their edits, and was ultimately blocked for long-term edit warring. I also opened an ] after noting a suspicious new account {{U|Sajay the future of india}}, which was created 2 hours after Anjaan received his 48 block, making the same fundamental edits. Anjaan's block expired, and he's again submitted disputed content at ]. In the user again submits their version of the article, which they had submitted multiple times before their block.. From what I can tell, the user is randomly reordering names, changing references, making assertions about box office gross that isn't supported by the source (User asserts 50 crore total, source says "close to 49", and the community apparently disputes the reliability of the sources used), Anjaan333 fails to actually DISCUSS the edits per ] (see I placed on his talk page asking him to do just that) and his edit summaries are insufficient, tending to comprise confusing statements like "if you are a mohanlal fan then saw his films not distroy wiki", "Ok sir", "Sir", "Sock", "Socker", "Sorry", "Where is unsourced". Since there seems to be no getting through to this editor, I think this goes beyond edit-warring, and is just straight-up disruptive editing. User also didn't respond when he was notified of the edit warring report I filed, so I doubt he's going to let us reason with him. Thanks, ] (]) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The user's unwillingness or inability to use talk pages is troublesome and either a symptom of ] or ]. -- ] 17:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or perhaps it's a sign that we really do need ]. ] (]) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Amen. The instructions on how to use talk pages sent out by OTRS result in a response of utter bafflement about half the time. And they are pretty clear. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# Go to the article in question | |||
| :::::# Click "talk" at the top | |||
| :::::# Click "New section" | |||
| :::::# Enter a heading in the first box,and your message in the second. Put ~~<nowiki />~~ at the end to sign your message. | |||
| :::::# Click the "save page" button at the bottom. | |||
| :::::All the best: ''] ]'', <small>20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == Contested renaming of Đeneral Janković == | |||
| ] article is renamed, contrary to the outcome of the last RM discussion. Will somebody restore its name prior to contested renaming. Thanks.--] (]) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've moved it back with a note that, as a controversial (to say the least) subject area, any renaming must be done through the ] process. I'm about to drop a note on the mover's talk page pointing out the same thing. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you.--] (]) 08:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:SPI == | |||
| ] has an enormous backlog with at least one case listed 9 days ago awaiting action. --] (]) 12:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The people that you should speak to about that are at ]. ] ] 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Scratching my head == | |||
| Ive come across a page that Im really not sure whats happening. ] has ~17+ editors editing it, most of these users its their only activity. Im not sure exactly what is going on. Is this some kind of sock issue or what? ] (]) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :School project? ]] 15:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was my first guess, too. Note that Djgriffin7 previously did a lot of work on ] (formerly a page in Djgriffin7's userspace), who like Frank is a communications professor. Also, a lot of the usernames editing this page end in "93" or "94", which would suggest a class of college students who are 20 or 21 years old. ] (]) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} A bunch of students working on their professor's article would be my random guess, but surely the easiest way to find out is probably to ask one of them on their talk page? ] (]) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::...or to be more efficient ask {{ping|Djgriffin7}} as he is likely the co-ordinator. ]] 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on the IPs that have edited the page, I would say it is a project from State University of New York at Buffalo. ] ] 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's definitely a class project at ]. See . Re ], see ]. It would also be helpful to put him in touch with ]. ] (]) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello - yes - these two pages are class projects for students who are enrolled in Communication Theory courses. Out of the approximately 75 students across two classes at two schools not one of them had ever edited Misplaced Pages in any fashion (until now). I hope that our activity was not too troublesome and was not so erratic or error filled as to cause any problems. I of course am a new Misplaced Pages editor and am open and welcome any tips or advice. Graciously. ] (]) 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : ], we have a ] area that you would usually contact ''in advance'' of the project in order to help alleviate concerns like this, and coordinate the types of learning that are conducive to Misplaced Pages. This will help you to ensure your student success! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for guiding me in this direction. I am dying to know what a "sock issue" is as referenced by User:Werieth above. I couldn't find it on Google or via Misplaced Pages. Can someone explain? ] (]) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ]. And for similar policy, see ]. ] (]) 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Offensive rhetoric== | |||
| IP ] comment, labeled ''Misplaced Pages all-time low'', at ], labels unspecified WP contributors as "neo-nazis." We don't need such invective in connection with such a potentially fraught topic. ] (]) 21:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : You can place a warning on their talk page. That's a start. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Someone (not I) already removed it. ] (]) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Ds/sanction move request == | |||
| I have initiated a move request to move ] to ]. The template has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community Sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for Community Sanctions. The move request is at ]. —] (]) 11:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Quality of article creations == | |||
| As most of you are probably aware, I have a long-standing history with ]. Some of you feel that I should leave him alone, either because my complaints are meritless (which is contradicted by the results of these discussions), or because there is no need in a wiki-environment for one person to follow the edits of another, no matter how many times they have found problems in them; the theory is that if it is bad enough, someone else will notice it. In reality, this make take quite a while though; once editors are established, their edits get very little scrutiny, as evidenced by the below. | |||
| In an effort to reduce the number of complaints and errors, Rich Farmbrough has received three ], basically an attempt to improve the quality of his editing by reducing the quantity and repetitiveness of them. While the restrictions seem to be followed now, the wanted results are lacking. I have focused on the articles he created since his return, the ones listed between ] and ], i.e. (not counting the disambiguation pages) some 43 articles. I have not focused on his many redirect creations, although they have some of the same characteristics, like the self-referencing ] or the dubious value of ], which seems to be a novel invention, not something really ever used by Picasso or in any serious work about him. | |||
| Not mentioning simply unsourced articles or articles with serious typos, and skipping those I was not able to quickly research (e.g. biographies of Japanese military personnel), I noticed among these 43 new, often very short articles the following problems (in reverse chronological order): | |||
| *] | |||
| **Wrong year of birth and death (article gives (1815-1874), correct would be either 1845 (10 December) or 1846 as year of birth, and 1886 as year of death, e.g. | |||
| **Wrong business (politician? Can't find any evidence for it) | |||
| **Lanigan or Lannigan? Article was moved, but lead not corrected | |||
| **No references | |||
| *] | |||
| **Merged an existing article with the right name to his newly created one with the wrong name (original was ], note the extra "R" in borne) | |||
| *] | |||
| **Only claim to fame is a book he wrote, ''Giovanni Sbogarro: A Venetian Tale''. In reality, he didn’t write that book, but translated it from the French (original by ], ''Jean Sbogar, Histoire d’un Bandit Illyrien''), which leaves us with a distinct lack of any notability in the article. | |||
| **Originally claimed that the book was written in 1920 instead of 1820, corrected by someone else | |||
| *] | |||
| **Title and first line don’t match; title is wrong, should be at Rantzau, not Rantzou | |||
| **Unsourced | |||
| *] | |||
| **1838-1956: really? That’s quite a feat | |||
| **We already had the article ] on the same person… | |||
| **Image is probably still copyrighted (uploaded to Commons as PD by Rich Farmbrough, but artist died in 1945, so not dead for 70 years yet) | |||
| *] | |||
| **Born in 1842? No, born in 1840 (some sources give 1848, but none seem to give 1842) | |||
| **Better known as Olga Novikoff or Olga Novikova, or especially Olga Alekseevna Novikova, but very rarely, if ever, as Olga de Kireef Novikoff (no Google books or regular google hits outside Misplaced Pages and its mirrors) | |||
| *] | |||
| **Her real name is not "Louis Dwight Cole" but "Lois Dwight Cole", much better known than the rarely used pseudonym Anne Lattin. Important for playing a crucial role in publishing ''Gone with the wind'' as an editor, not for her few books, but that can't be learned from the article | |||
| **Born c. 1910? Well, actually, born 1903, died 20 July 1979 | |||
| *] | |||
| **Almirante de Melo was a sailor? Well, yes, "almirante" is the Portuguese for "admiral", so he was an admiral, as someone else helpfully added as a category afterwards… Perhaps technically not wrong, but not helpful for our readers at all. | |||
| *] | |||
| **Taking three days to die? No, some Sergeant-Major, the only one to survive the massacre and reach camp, survived for three days: the Governor was probably instantly dead. This can be seen , the source used by Rich Farmbrough. | |||
| So, of these 43 articles, at least 9 have serious problems (certainly when taking into account the stubbiness of many of them), some more major than others of course. Many of the others are probably factually correct, and some errors undoubtedly escaped me, but is it really acceptable that an experienced editor (not some clueless newbie) is filling Misplaced Pages with this amount (or percentage) of really incorrect information? Creating duplicate articles, merging a correctly titled one to an incorrect title, getting dates of birth and death wrong, missing the important facts of someone's live completely, ... | |||
| All advice on how this can be prevented is welcome. Sofixit is a short term solution, but hardly something that one can expectr to be a continuous state for any editor. While we need prolific and enthusiastic editors in general, we don't need them no matter what, and at some point one has to consider whether many contributions outweigh this many errors. ] (]) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : It sounds like you and Rich Farmbrough make a great team - he tees up rough and stubby articles and you do the detail work. A tremendous amount of Misplaced Pages content is created through exactly such steps. ] ] 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't mind rough and stubby, I mind wrong (and unsourced as well, since that makes it much harder to check everything). I don't mind correcting someones errors, if it is a rare occurrence or if there is improvement. But neither applies here, and at some point enough is enough. The very least is requesting that all his articles (and major edits) are properly sourced, so that we don't get edit summaries like ). ] (]) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*...An edit in which he ''removed'' the reference to being a politician. He was fixing ''what you found him at fault for'' and you still find him at fault while fixing it. By the way, there was in fact a George T. Lanigan who served on a council in Boston, just not THIS Lanigan. Rich's edit summary is a mea culpa, nothing more, nothing less. --] (]) 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I am not complaining about the edit, I am remarking on the edit summary, which is not a "mea culpa" at all, no matter how you read it. A mea culpa is "my mistake" (e.g. the copyright status I questioned above was my mistake), not "I'll remove it even though I think I was right". Your years-long defense of Rich's edits is admirable, but it would ne helpful if it was a bit more realistic sometimes. ] (]) 07:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Sofixit is how Misplaced Pages works. Every single one of us makes errors. It's the body as a whole that works. ] (which states that perfection is ''not'' required) is policy. --] (]) 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Sofoxit is nice, but that doesn't mean that substandard editors are allowed free rein. ] is the guideline that applies here (e.g. ] #2, but also ]: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.". ] (]) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *** Fram, really, most of these are not "serious problems". They are minor, and easily rectified. Just a cursory review of the 9 you selected shows errors on your part. Examples; Peter Irving was a member of the New York State Assembly. It took me just a few seconds in a Google search to find that. Sufficient for notability (see ]). You claim that ] is "probably still copyrighted". You are wrong. The work was published in 1912 (which is noted in the article), making it clear of copyright as it was published prior to 1923 (See ). You claim Ms. Cole is famous for her role in "in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor". Well, since you attack Rich for copyediting errors, you should have typed "Gone with the Wind". Yes, almirantes are sailors, and the article was in need of improvement, a fact that Rich noted himself on the article. I also note that several of the issues that you raise have already been corrected by Rich. Perhaps you should have raised this at his talk page first? "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Misplaced Pages's venues of higher dispute resolution" (]). Since you are making so many errors in posting to WP:AN, should we disallow such "substandard editors" the "free rein" to post here? You're focusing on 21% of the articles he created, finding problems that do not exist, and failing to recognize the 79% where you didn't find error. You failed to raise these issues to Rich to give him an opportunity to fix them (which he is now doing). This is agitating. Go back to Rich's talk page and work it out. --] (]) 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****None of the issues that I raised were corrected by Rich Farmbrough ''before I raised them''. None of these were minor either (three of the nine articles are or were at the wrong title, one is a duplicate of an existing article, and so on). Easily rectified? Yes, of course, once someone points out the problem and the solution, they are easily rectified. Until then, they remain for months or years. The problem is not that he didn't have an opportunity to fix them, the problem is that he created these errors, even though they were apparently "easily rectified". I don't blame him for copyediting errors (like writing Gorges for Georges, or itialicizing a title instead of bolding it in the first line of an article), that's the kind of thing that always happens and is indeed easily rectified by passing contributors; but I blame him for basic factual errors. The difference should be quite obvious. As for "go back to his talk page and work it out", earlier problems took years to work out and were only resolved by ArbCom. He is not some newbie who needs some initial guidance, these are basic errors that no experienced editor should be making with such a frequency. ] (]) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***** So instead just ramp it up and bring it here for sanctions against him? Much (all?) of this has been corrected since you started this thread. Had you given him the opportunity on his talk page, it's obvious he would have corrected it. Next time, don't ]. Give the man the benefit of a ''chance'' to fix it. So what's your end game here Fram? What's your ultimate goal with regards to Rich? --] (]) 13:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******Much remains uncorrected, as can be easily seen by comparing the above comments with the actual articles. It's obvious he would have corrected it? That's not what happened some of the previous times, when I listed the problems and he halfheartedly corrected some of them, disregarding the others for no obvious reasons. Furthermore, like I said already a few times, the problem here is not "will he correct them or not", the problem is someone creating this many factual errors. Of course, some people will never agree that X is many (apparently more than 20% is not "many" for some). There is no ABF involved, he created these errors, I didn't assume he did. My end game? To have an editor with a basic sense of quality and fact checking. If you want to add facts to an encyclopedia, we should be reasonably sure that they will be correct. Not perfect, not typofree, not complete, that's not what anyone is asking; but normally, your edits should be factually correct (or at least backed up by a reliable source). ] (]) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******* But since you've already concluded that talking with him on his talk page is useless, then it would seem obvious your intention is having him banned from the project, no? --] (]) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ********No. I've concluded (rightly or wrongly) that it is useless ''for me'' to talk to him on his user talk page. My intention is to seriously reduce the number of errors he introduces into the mainspace. Any method that can achieve that is fine by me. For someone so concerned about ABF, you seem to be very quick at doing the same. ] (]) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Strong agreement with bd2412 here. WP does not (rightly or wrongly, but that's how it is) have a minimum quality standard. WP:CSD is as close as it gets. | |||
| : WP used to have a practice of collaborative editing, per IMPERFECT and SOFIXIT. This has been increasingly eroded recently, a development that does nothing to improve quality and even less for breadth of coverage. The deletionist logjam that nothing can be created unless perfect in all aspects from the start is one of the most harmful problems today. ] (]) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :** Yes there are issues, a lot of articles have issues. Thousands and thousands of articles are blatantly wrong on some level. Rich does need to be more careful, many seem to be simple typos at really key points, but he has come back to fix them when the error was pointed out. Rich should develop some content to GA and FA standards, but that's a journey and I hope he'll make the jump to it. Rich, you should not be egging it on with edit summaries about "automation" and such. Though it seems bizarre that someone should have to worry about the Proveit citation template maker or something... ] (]) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :***The argument from ] is incorrect. Yes, Misplaced Pages does indeed grow and get better by editors fixing other editors' mistakes, but that does not negate the obvious, that an editor who creates articles with many mistakes in them is a '''''problem'''''. When we fix problems in an article, we AGF that the problems got there accidentally, but if an editor is having a lot of accidents, it points to a lack of care, and that hurts Misplaced Pages. For the time before a mistake is fixed, our accuracy is less than it should be, and out credibility (such as it is) is reduced. For these reasons, an editor who habitually makes content mistake needs to be dealt with. Fram is right to bring this to our attention - although Fram should also have '''''fixed the problems they found''''' and not left them in the articles. ] (]) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :****Normally, I would have fixed them. But in this case, I prefer to stay away from his articles, as fixing all his problems may be seen as harassment by some as well (and would be a nearly full-time job anyway). And the claims (not by BMK, by others here) that the problems are fixed after they have been pointed out is not really correct as well, many of the issues raised above still remain. The case remains that no experienced editor should be needing a nanny. ] (]) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :****Note that I have corrected hundreds of errors he created in the past. I have little interest in repeating that experience, or in delegating it to someone else. My aim is to prevent more problems. ] (]) 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :***** The only way you're going to prevent him from making errors is to ban him from the project. Is that your goal? You made several errors in bringing this complaint here. Should we ban you? --] (]) 13:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :******Several errors? I said that a picture was probably still copyrighted, your link seems to indicate that it isn't. Fine, that's one worry less, talk page used like it should be. I believe that when people make ''too many'' factual errors in their article editing (not just typos and the like, but getting basic facts wrong), action should be taken. Mentoring, restrictions, whatever, up to and including bans when necessary. For most editors here, this will never be a problem, since their error rate is considerably lower. But some editors, who continue to be problematic in their main space editing (like Rich Farmbrough, but there are other examples like LauraHale and so on), will need to change if they want to stay around. ] (]) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :******* Yes, several errors were made by you. That was just in a cursory review. If that many came out in a cursory review, I'm sure you've committed many more errors. So what should we do about all the errors you are committing? --] (]) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :******** Feel free to list the other factual errors I made. Then again, if they are of the same level as your "oh, you wrote ''Gone with the wind'' instead of ''Gone with the Wind''" example, don't bother. Either you can't see the difference between the kind of errors I listed (and the namespace they were made) and the things you are complaining about, or you are deliberately trying to disrupt the discussion, but neither is helpful. If you don't produce anything new or more substantial, then I'll let you have the final word if you want it, and am done replying to you here. ] (]) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The initial creation of ] seems to have been copied from ] without attribution, which is also potentially a problem. ] (]) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Which is easily fixed using the "copied" template and putting on the talk page of both articles. ] (]) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: According to ], the edit summary link is required, and {{tl|Copied}}s are optional. ] mentions using ]s. ] (]) 04:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Fram found 9 of 43 articles created by Rich to have "serious problems" (debatable; some of them are simply copyedit issues). I.e, 21%. I took at look at Fram's 10 most recent article creations. Of those, I found 4 with various issues: | |||
| #] was created by Fram with various categories commented out, thus no categorization. | |||
| #]; created with part of edit summary reading "Create short article", yet Fram failed to add stub templates {{tl|Scotland-sport-club-stub}} and {{tl|curling-stub}}, which are present on 2 of 6 of the articles in the category he placed this article in. Also failed to use {{tl|Infobox curling club}}, which is recommended by ]. | |||
| #] created by Fram with commonscat and section title issues that had to be fixed by another editor . | |||
| #] was created by Fram with one of the categories being ] (). Fram knew the animal was fictional, but placed it in this category anyway. The category was later removed by another editor. | |||
| Granted, a small sample, but it appears 40% of Fram's article creations have issues. This is about twice as bad as Rich. Fram has been editing since 2005. He is a very experienced editor. He should know better, right? Should be invoke sanctions on Fram? Of course not. The point here is nobody is perfect, and ]. --] (]) 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hammersoft, you are comparing formatting issues with factual errors. I could have listed many formatting issues from Rich Farmbroughs creations, if I wanted to get a higher percentage, but then you would have (correctly) complained about me including all kinds of minor issues which have no impact on the correctness of the encyclopedia. Not using stub categories, infoboxes, and so on has no impact on the correctness of the article. The Gruuthusemuseum diff you give is one typo ("Links" instead of "links") and then some AWB replacements where the original is also accepted, these aren't errors. If you ''can't'' see the difference between those and e.g. having the wrong name, wrong dates of birth and death, and so on, then you have no business in this discussion. If you ''do'' see the difference, but choose to ignore it for the sake of making a ridiculous ], then you have no business here at all, as you are simply being disruptive. ] (]) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''FWIW''', it appears that {{u|Rich Farmbrough}} has been informed about this thread. He appears to be staying out this discussion, which -- from what I've read up to this point -- appears to be the wisest thing to do. -- ] (]) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I have history with both editors, and it should be noted that Rich's alleged errors are mostly errors of '''fact''' or of copyright violation, while Fram's are errors of formatting. Not at all similar. And I would say that someone who makes errors of fact in even 5% of article creations would be a problem. (I say that as someone who has not created articles, because I ''know'' I would make too many errors.) Still, I don't see ''quite'' enough here for Rich to be censured for it. If Fram finds more errors in the future, now that Rich has been informed, this is the place. — ] ] 20:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Arthur Rubin's point about the '''''quality''''' of the errors seen being just as important -- if not more so -- than the '''''quantity''''' is an important one. Factual errors and copyright violations are serious problems that need to be eliminated as much as possible, and do not compare with errors of formatting or other picayune mistakes.<p>I believe that Fram's point is that RF's history is rife with making errors. Previously, his use of automation frequently resulted in formatting errors, and he is now banned from using automation. Now, the point is being made that his non-automated work may have errors as well, and of a wholly different and more serious kind. I'm not quite sure that the evidence here is conclusive, but it '''''is''''' worrisome, nonetheless, and should serve as a wake-up call to RF to be more careful in the future, or to have other editors vet his work whenever possible. ] (]) 01:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I doubt much has changed though. He hasn't created more articles, but yesterday, i.e. after this discussion had been going on for a while, he made his first edit to , but the information he added was wrong (and unsourced). I reverted and explained why on his talk page, after which he added the probably correct but still unsourced information. Similarly, he moved ] to ], but then changed her full name in the article to . When challenged about this on his talk page, he pointed to a Spanish (or Portuguese?) translation of an old book on Madame Blavatsky; the original book did not contain the supposed full name (it mentioned once "Olga Novikoff, ''née'' Kiréef"), but somehow the web-only translation of this book changed this to Olga Kireef de Novikoff, and ''that'' lonely and utterly unreliable source is the basis for Rich Farmbrough to determine the full name of this Russian lady in England, for whom there are plenty of fully reliable English language sources. It doesn't look like this thread has (so far) made any difference in his approach to fact checking. ] (]) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == An informal RfC at Talk:Celibacy needs attention == | |||
| * ] | |||
| Would like someone like to take a look at the discussion above and see what should be done. This originated at ] which closed a few months ago as a merge to ], but what does one do when editors at the target do not want it? There seems to be a rough consensus to not include said material, but as it was never a formally-posted/templated RfC, not sure if we advertise for a wider audience or just run with what's there. ] (]) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{done}} --]] 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting review of ] block of ] == | |||
| {{archive top|result= I haven't commented on the block, so I guess I'm uninvolved enough. DP blocked, Ed unblocked, lots of people disagree with the block or some other aspect, both sides present opinions, stalemate. Put another way: we all lose. Other venues exist, including Arb and RFC/U, although there wasn't any demonstration of actual abuse, nor substantiated claims of a long term pattern. It's a ugly discussion and it is doubtful anything good came from it, and perhaps it just needs to be put out of its misery. As Yunshui has so accurately stated, there is more heat than light here. ] | ] | ] 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| I would like the community's input on two matters: | |||
| # Specifically, ] block of ] | |||
| # Generally, what are admins obligated to consider when blocking for edit-warring when two or three reverts have been made. | |||
| The article in question is ] . Diffs supplied upon request but I don't think anyone is disputing the actual edits. | |||
| Flyer22 reverted twice in the span of five minutes this morning. After the second revert, she was warned by the other editor for edit warring. No more reverts occurred on her part and talk was ongoing . After about forty minutes after her last revert, EatsShootsAndLeaves blocked her and the other editor (who had three reverts) for edit warring. There is some history between Flyer22 and EatsShootsAndLeaves as ] will attest to . Other editors including myself got involved on both talk pages , . Rather than discussing lifting the block, EatsShootsAndLeaves chose to characterize my comments as "atrocious and incendiary" | |||
| Whether he agrees or not, EatsShootsAndLeaves' actions '''gives the appearance''' he will impose ] as he sees fit. As I said on Alison's page, I'm just flabbergasted that an editor in good standing can be blocked for two reverts with no warning. Looking over the edit histories of the 20,000+ articles I have watchlisted, hundreds of veteran editors would have lengthy block records if this was applied across the board. There needs to be some other justification for blocking other than "two reverts". --] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : This is the most disgusting show of ABF I've seen in ages. I'm currently in discussion with Writ Keeper on my talkpage regarding this issue, and have already advised that I would review. NeilN's incendiary and non-AGF comments so far today have been unfortunate, just like this filing - it's phrased as a question, but is instead an accusation. I will, however, make nomore comments here - and will continue the discussion on my talkpage where it's already underway <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I would say that the word "incendiary" applies to both ESL and NeilN here. Rage and accusations aren't going to help outsiders understand what happened here, or decide what should happen going forward.<p>It appears that ESL he's going to re-review the basis for the block; how about we give him a little time to do that and ''then'' see what might or might not need doing? ] (]) 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *As far as I am aware, there are no discretionary sanctions on 'Human Sexuality' although there are on some specific areas that fall under it, so there is no real reason for any admin to start imposing a 1rr restriction without some form of discussion. While edit warring can be done with less than 3rr, if someone makes 2 reverts, is warned about edit warring, and starts discussing on the talk page. ''That is how editing is supposed to work.'' Any block at that point is just punitive and petty. So since EatsShootsAndLeaves wants a question, here is one - "What about your block was preventative?" ] (]) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This is very premature. I do see that ] is discussing with ESL, as we like to see, but while that discussion may not become a case study for how disputes ought to be discussed, it looks to me like it was abandoned a bit early. I'm sympathetic to the point that the block appears a bit hasty, but talk about it and come back here if that fails.(in other words agreeing with the sandwich)]] 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If a veteran editor labels your point of view "atrocious and incendiary" then that's a sign for me to break off and get other opinions. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *For convenience, I've assembled a list of the relevant diffs, sorted by time made: ] ] ]] 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ], as you know, topics surrounding human sexuality are the primary areas where Flyer22 tends to edit. They do a lot of good work there, across a swath of topics I wouldn't even begin to touch. However, human sexuality topics are also those that have gotten many editors in a lot of trouble - having just search ANI for both "Flyer22" and "human sexuality", you can see a lot of issues raised across the board - including a rather nasty situation between Flyer and a transgender editor that I believe ended horribly. It's an often poisonous set of topics where ] has often been accused, and tempers have flared...often with very little provocation. | |||
| :: Flyer22 is a long-time editor, and while they have been knee-deep in some of these situations, have been provoked, and have also done some of the provoking. As a long-term editor, they also understand EW, its difference from 3RR, and the ''appearances''. They know ] like the back of their hand. | |||
| :: From what I see of your list, it was almost 30 minutes between Flyer22's last revert on ] and when I blocked ''both'' editors. This delay is not at all questionable - after all, ] reports often go hours without being touched, and blocks that come from those delayed reviews are ''not'' considered punitive. | |||
| :: Also, if one considered ''only'' those edits from today, then you're right, my actions might appear odd. Taking the poisonous history of that article into account, it does place the entire situation into a much wider context - a context that '''cannot''' be ignored - those 4 reverts ''cannot be taken'' in isolation. | |||
| :: Discussing on the article talkpage is also not a vaccination against being blocked for edit-warring or 3RR - discussion is ''vital'' to the project moving forward, after all, it's how we gain ]. | |||
| :: The edits being made by the other blocked party were perhaps inappropriate, but did not violate ], ], nor any of the common exceptions to edit-warring. Following ], or at least letting the discussion on the article talkpage continue instead of immediately reverting would have done no harm to the project or the subject. | |||
| :: As has already been said elsewhere and many many times, nobody is guaranteed 3 reverts - that's merely a bright line. | |||
| :: Flyer22 themself has admitted to having performed the second revert, and IIRC they acknowledged that it could be perceived as problematic. From what I recall from their talkpage this morning, they have not doubted the ''technicality'' of this block, but have merely expressed that I should not have been the one to perform it. I have not been to their talkpage in hours, and have already advised that I will not return - not even to re-read. | |||
| :: Based on the potential for escalation as per history on this article and with other editors on this and related articles, I perceived an extremely short edit-warring block as an immediate resolution to what I viewed as a rapidly-going-to-hell situation. Both parties were ''equally'' at fault, and as such, I issued 12hr blocks to ''both'' parties (even though Flyer22's past block history might have called for something longer, it was my clear desire to prevent what I perceived to be immediate issues, and most certainly not to punish anyone). | |||
| :: What was I to do instead? | |||
| ::: Block neither and allow the possible escalation? No - not knowing the history of the wars on that and similar articles. | |||
| ::: Block only Flyer? Hell no - they were ''equally'' at fault with the reverts. | |||
| ::: Block only the other editor? I considered it - briefly. But then I considered the ethical dilemma with leaving one editor with the ability to keep control of the article, ''or'' to have the appearance of being favoured over the other. | |||
| :: It was a catch-22 situation, so I made the decision to make short, equal, project-protecting blocks. After all, both were warned, and both were very aware of the issues <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You didn't even consider placing a note on the article's talk page stating any further reverts would result in a block? --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Why would I do that - both editors were obviously aware of edit-warring; after all, ONE of the editors was throwing warnings around everywhere <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And again, Flyer22 had no more reverts after the other editor gave her a warning. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Does that mean the edit-war had stopped? Do you guarantee that? There's a reason that even ] is over ''24 hours'' - nobody watches their keyboard 24/7, and for all anyone - including you - knows is that they might have gone back to make their next revert (note also the definition of ] does not mean simply clicking UNDO) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You've been quite loudly banging ] around my head today. Shouldn't you do the same? --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I'm the only one who is :-) There's a reason I chose 12hrs, isn't there. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: You'll also notice no one else has said "Good block" or "Endorse block". --] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: That's irrelevant, and in the long run untrue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So feedback is irrelevant and you can see into the future. Okay. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I've unblocked {{u|Flyer22}} after taking into account the relevant edit histories and {{u|EatsShootsAndLeaves}}'s ] that he blocked without <s>investigating all of the relevant facts</s> fully ascertaining the entire timeline. Block logs are permanent things, people. We should not be blocking until we are absolutely, 100% certain we need to do so. Thanks, ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I made no such admission <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sorry, you only stated that "I can state without a doubt that the alignment is very different from what I reviewed this morning" when presented with a ] of the edits that you blocked Flyer for. I'm not even taking any alleged previous history with the editor into account. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Right, "the alignment is very different" is obviously NOT the same as not "investigating all the facts" - as you can read above, it was extensively investigated. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You and I are reading that very differently then. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Not sure how. English might not be my first language, but there's no other possible way to have read my statement...and have you '''corrected''' your incorrect statement after having seen the truth above? There seems to be a disconnect now...oh, and now there's the matter of the ethical dilemma about the other editor '''remaining''' blocked because of a rash unblock of one of the parties <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There is no ethical dilemma here because the situation is not symmetric. Mdthree before , which violates ]. Flyer22 did no such thing. -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::^What the king said. This wasn't a 'rash unblock' of only one party. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: So, you'll still be correcting your wording, right ]? Bizarrely stating above ''and'' elsewhere that I said that I admitted that I had not investigated is false ... and I would normally expect better of you that to leave statements like that hanging around. You're a fan of the truth. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've given a slight correction, though I'm not sure how 'bizarre' it was. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: That one's even more false. Hell, did you even '''read''' my extensive analysis? WTF is this, "fuck the Panda over day"? I didn't get a card for that in the mail. C'mon Ed, everything I typed today is in English <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : On point 1: so even though ] was to wait until I had re-analyzed, one of my colleagues went ahead and unblocked one of the 2 editors without waiting. Of course, they did that without having read my analysis - and their unblock reasoning now doesn't stand up to my extensive statement. They have no desire to correct, and the block would have been almost over by now anyway, so meh. Oddly, there's been no useful comments ''since'' I showed the degree of analysis I went to. So, I'll consider mys statement to have been sufficient under ], and therefore this situation closed. | |||
| : On point 2, this isn't the place for philosophy, but I have shown all the things I took into account in instituting an edit-warring block before reaching 3RR, again, as per ] - there's been no statement that I missed any steps, so again, closed | |||
| : Gonna take my kids to a movie <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I agree; it is not symmetric. I have been represented unfairly. I would appreciate an unblock as well. (1)] makes the claim I made three reverts; I did not. (2) ] claims that because I know the rules about 3RR, I would have violated them. I would not, I know the rules. (3) ] said I was gaming the system; however the system advantages the first editor. The rule is structured that way and it is not gaming the system to follow the rules. As for symmetry, I think content needs to be considered. I was not asking for something inflammatory. The ] opening paragraphs make no mention of the sexes either male, female, man, or woman. Its not possible to define sexuality without referencing sex; take a biologists point of view for a moment and look at the opening paragraph. ] (]) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: ], your comments about content are irrelevant. You made an edit and Flyer22 reverted it. As per ], ''you should never re-add it until you have reached consensus to do so via discussion''. However, you DID re-revert, and provoked another editor into an edit-war, while at the same time warning THEM for edit-warring. Obviously, if you knew EW/3RR well-enough to actually warn someone else about it, you knew it well-enough that you were also subject to it. Whether you hold the ] or not, you are still subject to the same article and editing rules as everyone else, and we're not going to discuss content here <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You attempted to game the system by inappropriately slapping me with a WP:3RR warning and telling me not to revert again so that you could then revert. You hardly waited for a reply before reverting. Also read ]; never do I need such a template slapped on my talk page. ] (]) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I've stated enough on this matter . With regard to a few of Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's comments about me above: No, I did not acknowledge that my two reverts could be perceived as problematic; as the aforementioned discussion on my talk page shows, I was referring to my block log; I stated, "As far as I can see, you've screwed up my block log even further than it was already screwed up, even with all of clarifications that are in it, knowing very well that many editors here look at the block log and see 'problematic editor' when it has as many blocks/block descriptions as I now have...no matter what is clarified in the blocks." As for my not having doubted the technicality of this block, I have, which is also made clear in the aforementioned talk page discussion; I did not object solely because Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves was the one who blocked me. As for the transgender editor Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves is referring to, anyone can look at ] for details on that; that editor was topic-banned from human sexuality articles for very good reasons; I was not topic-banned. Nor will I ever be, and that's for very good reasons. As for Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's characterization of me, it leaves much to be desired. ] (]) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Recall petition=== | |||
| Based on some of the comments, not just here but over the totality of ]'s admin career, I think that it'd be fruitful to have discussion of his status, and that an RfA (a "reconfirmation RfA" or "recall RfA") would be the best venue for this, mainly because that's a place where an actual decision one way or the other may be effected. | |||
| In this, I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on ]'s suitability as an admin, just that it may be something that people may wish to discuss. To that end I've initiated a recall petition (six signatures would be required) here: ''']''' (because a user talk page is the specified venue for such petitions). | |||
| Questions such as "how is it legitimate, or even allowed, to post a recall position on an editor who's not a member of ] and who is not cooperating?" are best asked and answered there IMO (or here, whatever you like). | |||
| I assume that of course the following isn't necessary, but just to cover all my bases: | |||
| *If anyone feels the petition is not legitimate, please don't erase it (and please restore it someone does, thanks). The correct procedure would be to initiate a ] request on that section of my talk page. (Yes you can run an MfD on sections of pages.) I'd rather you didn't but it's your right. | |||
| *If anyone feels I'm out of line here, please don't block me (and please reinstate me if someone does, thanks). The correct procedure here would be to open an ANI thread, or an RFC:USER, or something along those lines. ] (]) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*], what kind of request are you saying would be correct procedure for an opponent? ]? Our ] page is a redirect to ]. ] (]) 03:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note: Nyttend's comment after what seemed to be by Herostratus when tweaking his wording. ] (]) 08:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, no, heaven forbid that your opening a recall attempt should be interpreted as expressing an '''''opinion''''', no, you're just an innocent bystander here with no feelings one way or the other about the admin.<p>Yeah, I believe that.<p>Really<p>Here's what I think, innocent bystander-person: there really '''''should be''''' a community admin-recall procedure, but as of this time there isn't, which means that the only currently legitimate way to get an admin desysopped is to open a case at ArbCom, and make a case for removing the admin bit. So why don't you stop stirring unnecessary and unproductive drama at AN, and head on over to ArbCom. I'm '''''sure''''' they'll be receptive to your argument that an admin should be desysopped because he's been a bit '''''cranky''''' lately. Yeah, that'll really go over '''''really''''' well. ] (]) 05:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, that seems a little uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, I can understand if you ''disagree'' with Herostratus, but does he really deserve to be castigated in such a vicious and sarcastic manner?<p>My interactions with ] have been relatively limited, and the last time we spoke was sometime in 2013. He means well and does a lot of great work, but there have been a number of longstanding concerns about his temperament and judgment going back several years. If Herostratus feels that it is enough to petition for an administrator recall, then he can go ahead and initiate one. At the very least, it will help gauge whether or not he currently enjoys the support of the community, which is unclear at this point. I've called him an "admin's admin" on one occasion; I've also openly criticized several of his decisions in the past. I'll abstain from participation and leave it to the rest of the community to decide where to go from here. ] ] 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wait, what? DangerousPanda isn't even ''open'' to recall? That changes things somewhat. Recall is not a standard community process, nor is it even binding — it's a prerogative espoused by certain administrators to uphold personal accountability for themselves. I'll second what Beyond My Ken wrote regarding the proper venue being ]. ] ] 08:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ArbCom isn't the proper venue either - ArbCom only deals with cases of <s>repeated abuse of admin tools</i> specific egregious behaviour. There is actually no proper place for a general "''Has this admin lost the confidence of the community?''" process - and that's one of the big problems with Misplaced Pages governance. To have the bit forcibly removed, an admin must commit multiple specific and egregious offences, but there is no remedy for long-term passive-aggression. (Note these are general comments - I offer no opinion on this specific case) -- ] (]) 09:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (<small>Corrected my "repeated abuse of admin tools" mistake -- ] (]) 12:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)</small>) | |||
| :::::::You're confusing the eventual '''''success''''' of the complaint with the proper venue for it to take place in. ArbCom is the only proper venue for desysopping DP, and that is true regardless of whether the complaint is viable or not, which this one isan't. ] (]) 10:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, I'm not confusing anything of the sort. I agree that currently ArbCom is the only proper venue. But my view is that that is insufficient, as it does not encompass "loss of confidence" motions - for those, there is no proper venue. -- ] (]) 10:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And, yes, that is why you are confusing results with venues. If the proper venue is ArbCom. which you agree, then it is irrelevant whether the appeal will be successful or not. The appeal can be "insufficient" or misstated or malformed or idiotic or stupid or half-bakaed, but ArbCom is '''''still''''' the proper venue for it. ] (]) 10:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You know, I think we actually agree on this - the proper venue is indeed ArbCom, purely because there's no other venue - but I don't see how ArbCom could (or even should) judge "loss of confidence" cases - and they won't. So yes, there is a designated venue - even if that venue won't get any results. (And in a practical sense, there's no useful venue). -- ] (]) 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There have been a couple of statements on this matter around and about which appear to be incorrect. As ArbCom is the only place that administrators can have their tools removed, misuse of the tools should result in cases taken to ArbCom. It's likely to be dismissed if it's a one off, but if there's a pattern which might lead to "loss of confidence", then that should be raised. There are times that an RfC/U are appropriate for an admin and times when they are not, it's certainly not a ''requirement'' to happen before an ArbCom case. At any rate, ]' petition is not the way forward. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, Boing, that's not entirely accurate. Removal of tools is not necessarily conditional on their abuse. Repeated misuse has historically been deemed enough to desysop an administrator; also, considering that admins are held to higher standards of conduct, a history of questionable conduct may warrant a desysopping as well {{endash}} though this is uncharted territory, as far as I know. As said by others, if Herostatus thinks DangerousPanda's behaviour has been consistently poor, he should either open an RFC or bring a case to ArbCom. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::RfC is almost entirely useless for removal of the admin bit (When was the last time an admin had his bit removed as a result of an RfC? I'm willing to bet the answer is "never".) If Herostratus thinks that DP has abused the bit - and I don't believe for a second remonstrations that HS is just am neutral independent operator - he needs to present a case to ArbCom, which I'm willing to bet he never will, since this appears to be pure propaganda and nothing else. Put your money where your mouth is, Herostratus, and file an ArbCom case and see how quickly it's rejected. ] (]) 10:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't doubt your sincerity, Salvio, but history supports me. ArbCom does nothing about long-term low-level problems with admins - those who the community would not now support, but who have not committed sufficiently egregious misuse of tools. (I'd love to be proved wrong - but by actions not words). -- ] (]) 10:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I should add that I don't mean this as a criticism of ArbCom, just as a criticism of the governance structure itself. I don't think ArbCom should be expected to judge loss-of-confidence cases - the Community should be able to decide them, but currently cannot. RFC is not the venue, as it is not binding. -- ] (]) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't disagree. There '''''should''''' be a community-based desysop procedure, but at the moment there ain't, so we've got what we've got.] (]) 10:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yep, sad, isn't it? -- ] (]) 12:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Herostratus' page now violates ] - interesting that he made it on his takpage directly where a) all his talkpage watchers could participate simply by seeing their watchlist changes, and b) it now cannot be properly MFD'd. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Not ] again, Panda. Oh dear. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **While I oppose this recall attempt, I don't see how it violates WP:POLEMIC, as it is explicitly used in a (flawed) attempt at dispute resolution. As for the "talkpage watchers" comment; he openly announced this at WP:AN, so the influence of his talk page watchers doesn't seem to be a genuine concern. ] (]) 09:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Contrary to what is said above, it isn't necessary for an admin to abuse his tools before ArbCom can decide to desysop them. ] is a relatively recent example: Ironholds was desysopped for his comments and incivility, not for any abuse of the tools (please correct me if I'm wrong here). ] (]) 10:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ironholds was desysopped for "conduct unbecoming an adminstrator" fot having "a history of making highly inappropriate remarks both on-wiki and off-wiki on the various IRC channels, where he has often used violent and sexual language (evidence for this has been submitted and discussed in private). Moreover, on at least two occasions, he also logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects." You see some sort of parallel here with DP's behavior? 10:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You're quire right, Fram. I don't know why I didn't think of that case {{Endash}} and I was one of the drafters... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*No. DPanda can be abrasive, a bit of a bull in a china shop at times, but that is very different than what Ironholds did, by a mile. I don't see the self serving element at all. I don't question DPanda's faith in his actions, although I do have to admit wincing from time to time by his words or approach. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of RFC/U, but maybe that is the best venue as the problem appears to be one of communications and style more than anything else. Knowing when to accept community opinion even if you strongly disagree with it, that kind of stuff. He is not the only admin around here that fits that description, he is just the target of the day. Arb is the wrong venue, and won't get any results: RFC/U just might. ] | ] | ] 11:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. As far as I have seen, DP has done nothing as outrageous as the things Ironholds was desysopped for. I didn't claim or imply this either. My post was a reply to the discussion above, where it was basically said that ArbCom would only desysop for tools abuse, which is not correct. If someone wants to make the case that DP has a history of "conduct unbecoming an admin" which is sufficient to warrant desysoping (or admonoishing or whatever), then it would be incorrect to claim that such a casse doesn't belong at ArbCom ''a priori''. This has nothing to do with whether such a case would eventually result in any actions, or with whether there are in this case enough arguments to start such a case. Pointing out that the process allows this, and that there is precedent, doesn't mean that this case is truly comparable or would have any chance of success (with "success" defined as an action against the admin). ] (]) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Assuming Arbcom agrees there is some sort of issue, there are other outcomes that a case could have, including admonishment and reminders - which would carry more weight if similar behaviour were to re-occur. That then leaves the question of "do we want to improve the situation or do we want blood". This is where RfC/U also comes in - if people genuinely have an issue and want to see change, RfC/U is a useful tool - if they just want a desysop, the question would be "why didn't you do something sooner". ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Well of course I have an opinion. I'm just not expressing it since my role here is just to facilitate the process and so that wouldn't be helpful. | |||
| Here's what going on here: I'm making a stab at seeing if the community wants make a new thing, that being "recall of admins who are not in ]". This is a test case. If you think that initiating recall of admins who are not in ] is a bad idea generally, you probably don't want to sign the petition. If you think it's a good idea ''and'' you think that this case warrants one, you might want to consider signing. (Note that signing the petition is in no way a indication that you think the person shouldn't be an admin, just that you think that community ought to consider it.) | |||
| There's no question that this a stab at an organizational reform, I'm not being coy about that. Obviously if this were to go through, it would be a new thing. Since it' be a new thing, objections in the manner of "we haven't done this before" are not very germane. And objections in the manner of "this is not allowed" are not particularly satisfying. It's a wiki and community members are allowed to do whatever the community says they can, including make new things. We are not entirely bound to past procedures I hope, and that kind of thinking makes it hard for us to change and grow going forward. | |||
| My personal opinion is that recall of admins who are not in ] might very well be a good thing (of course I don't know this for sure), some of the reasons being: | |||
| *If there is going to be admin recall all, it seems silly to limit it to admins willing to place themselves in ], since it's possible that the admins who ''don't'' are exactly the ones that we are most likely to want to recall. | |||
| *It's much simpler and easier than going to ArbCom, when all you want is to consider adminship rather than bans and topic bans and so forth. | |||
| *It'd devolve some decisions down to the community rather than an elected board. All thing equal devolvement of decision-making downward is often functional. | |||
| *It allows the format of the conversations and procedures for recalling an admin to parallel the the format of the conversations and procedures for appointing an admin, which makes sense to me. (If ArbCom is much better than RfA at concluding who should or should be an admin, then probably ArbCom should appoint as well remove admins.) | |||
| *Might make the whole RfA thing less of a fraught thing and such a big deal -- easier out, easier in. Maybe. Not sure if this is true or would be a good thing though. | |||
| *And so forth. I'll bet you can come up with other reasons. ] (]) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't create a new process by strongarming through a "test case" - especially one which has a direct effect on another editor. You propose it, perhaps by way of an RFC at the Village Pump, you allow discussion around the topic, and you abide by the community's decision on its validity or otherwise. You don't get to unilaterally decide that Misplaced Pages now has a brand-new admin recall system of your own devising and expect to try it out on the first admin unfortunate enough to get dragged to ANI. ] ]] 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===So, what's really up?=== | |||
| Let's back the truck up here. Now, before I posted the analysis that led to the block above, there were some backroom discussions not only about the block, but discussions where some of my colleague admins (I won't say who) called me "a fucking prick". Some people - admins included - seemed to believe I'd gone completely off-the-rails or something over some isolated 4-edit sequence that on a normal day would lead to warnings and no more. | |||
| Oddly enough, after I posted the long thought process that went into the blocks, not a single admin has said "I disagree". In fact, it's been strangely quiet. Not a single admin has said "yeah, but...". Not a single admin has said ''anything'' about that because '''surprise, surprise''', Brad ''did'' think before clicking on a tool. Brad ''did'' end up doing what was in his judgement the protection of a dangerous corner of the project. Brad ''did'' try to balance the needs of 2 editors and the project. Indeed, Brad ''did'' ask himself a whackload of pertinent questions before clicking on that tool. Brad ''did'' do exactly what the project expects an admin to do before acting. Nobody since my post has said "Brad, that was a bad block based on your explanation". Yeah, I made a difficult judgement call based on months of watchlisting an hazardous, contentious article. People sure seemed to question the judgement without knowing the full details - someone even unblocked without knwoing them, but not a peep since - and that's because we've all been hanging on that balance at one point or another - hell, there's 1 or 2 ANI reports yesterday alone that showed ''less-complex'' thought processes that spiralled out of control. | |||
| So what's the real issue here? Me? The fact that I blocked someone who claims I know everything about them (I'm sorry, my memory doesn't work that way)? | |||
| I may be a lot of things, but the one thing that EVERYONE on this project knows about me is that '''I tell the truth, AND that when I say I'm sincere, I'm sincere'''. | |||
| Yesterday was a painful day ''not'' because of this AN, but because I did some very deep soul-searching, and then painfully bared my soul on another editor's page. What makes it worse is that due to my promise to them, I will not revisit their talkpage to see if they replied. It just so happens that the editor in question is one of the 2 editors I blocked yesterday. | |||
| Indeed, I tried to go back and find out just why Flyer22 is so damned pissed off at me, and yeah, apparently it DOES go back a long time when I personally failed to AGF - I made a statement based on '''all the available evidence presented to me at the time'''. It was the only statement supported by the available evidence at the time - although I did take it one step too far. Turns out that there was more '''unknown''' evidence that turned the tables not long after. If that evidence was available at the time, I sure would have made a different statement - but I sure should not have made the level of non-AGF statement I made anyway - that was a long time ago, and it took a lot of digging to find it. I cannot go back and right my personal great wrongs. I have apologized, more than once to Flyer22. I have sincerely stated my regret to them. And no, I didn't recognize that one of the people was blocking yesterday ''just happened'' to be the one person who I feel I had truly wronged years ago. | |||
| So what, are we complaining about the block now? Are we complaining about my thought process/judgement in yesterdays blocks? Are we complaining that I'm an emotional, rational human? Or are we just throwing random "let's play shotgun with some shit and see what sticks"? After all, I would LOVE to see where my REAL analysis failed - but in >12hrs, nobody has shown that at all - they've simply tossed shit. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Trying to avoid making personal attacks here, so let me just say that the thing everyone on this project supposedly knows about you is something I don't agree with. Apart from that, the posting of the long thought process was your 20:33, 6 May 2014 post? The one that was followed by an unblock which basically boiled down to "DP was wrong here"? A later statement by admin ] seems to agree. You then, on 23:18, 6 May 2014, posted a further "but I was right" reply, and now this. You may not agree with their analysis, but claiming that "Not a single admin has said ''anything'' about that" is rather strange and doesn't seem to match the above discussion. ] (]) 12:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] had something to say too. And I offered you an option you could have taken after your analysis. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Ed and KoH's comments were ''not'' related to my analysis - they were related to my question about unblocking the other party. Neil's opinion was noted, thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::My comments are not related to the block. I've not commented on it, nor do I have any desire to. I've never questioned your faith, honesty or sincerity. In fact, I've spoken out for them previously. Still, if people have a problem with your methods, the backwaters of RFC/U is the right venue, not Arb nor the drama pits of ANI/AN. If it isn't worth filing an RFC/U over, then dropping it would be the best solution. ] | ] | ] 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, bad block, whatever. I don't care about rubbish like my reputation's been tarnished or "block log is permanent omg what will people think?". {{redacted}} — ] 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You need to consider striking your comment, which is clearly in breach of ]. There just isn't any need for that and it isn't serving any higher purpose here. ] | ] | ] 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You need to consider blocking me for it. — ] 14:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Acting childish with me isn't solving anything. Acting dickish isn't either. ] | ] | ] 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I'm done here anyway. — ] 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As the opener of this thread, I had two questions and none of them involved desysopping. Restated, they were if Flyer22's block was a good one and what admins should consider when the bright line of ] hasn't been breached. I think an RFC/U is premature but hope that DP keeps other alternatives to blocking in mind when faced with a similar situation in the future. Taking an extra step before blocking, however fruitless it may seem (or turn out to be), is not always a bad thing. That's all I want to say about the RFC/U matter. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Neil, that's exactly my point: you opened a thread with 2 key questions. Of course, it would have been ridiculous for anyone to comment on the first ''prior'' to seeing what analysis I went through to got to the 2 block blocks. So, last night, I posted the thought process that went behind them. Your second question is philosophical, and AN is really not the right place for that type of question. Through my thorough analysis, I provided ''very good reason'' why alternative methods were not possible at that time, at least in my judgement. However, nobody else seems to be responding to your questions - well, one person ''did'' unblock. That was your sole response. Torches and pitchforks were optional. Welcome to the world of AN/ANI :-) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So we're supposed to wait around while an editor is under what seems to be a bad block for you to chime in? No, sorry. Other editors can look at the exact same situation you did and give their independent opinions. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Actually the consensus from the beginning of the thread was exactly that wait 'til Panda re-reviews. The clear point here is that what ''appeared'' on the surface to be a "possibly bad block" actually wasn't necessarily a clearly bad block once the explanation was given. Funny how the heat:light ratio could have been avoided if the conversation had merely continued on my talkpage, eh? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Funny, I read consensus as Flyer22 should not have been blocked. Something you still seem to disagree with. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Nope. Re-read the first few comments. Again, the consensus that ''you're'' talking about came before anyone knew the rationale behind the blocks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Personally, I think this is probably not the best place to be seeking clarification of the feedback (and/or the issues or supposed issues which are apparently being raised) in relation to your adminship as it is not a single action or comment or incident which has motivated this; I'm sure you realise that. I expect a lot of useful feedback and perspective can emerge from another venue (such as a RfC if its structured properly and the requirements are complied with); it's always better to take that type of option than to wait for a time when there are a greater number of "pitchforks", but ultimately it's your call if you choose to self-initiate an RfC/U or not, or consent to an RfC/U or not. It will depend on whether or not you're ready and willing to hear others thoughts on both the good bits and the bits which you could consider handling differently or improve on. On another note, there are a number of admins who jump into contentious issues, but not all of them feel this sort of backlash. I can even point to some, if they would let me, whom after taking up an RfC or similar route, modified just a few features of their approach and encounter this sort of trouble/outrage/scrutiny on a much smaller scale despite continuing to address those problems for the Community on an ongoing basis. To me, it shows they work even more effectively now handling the worst kind of editing or problems than if they did not heed the advice given to them or if they weren't ready to even consider acting carefully with another approach. That's my suggestion, but I realise that each person is different and it might equally be be something that you're not ready to do too. ] (]) 14:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ding ding ding, you win! This thread is supposed to discuss the block. It's supposed to discuss my ''analysis'' that led to the block. Somebody '''else''' turned it personal. ALl attempts to steer it back on track so that I can '''potentially learn what was wrong with my analysis that led to this specific pair of blocks''' has failed miserably. My sole conclusion from that is therefore: '''nothing was actually wrong, now that we ''understand'' it'''. Which oddly enough, makes the whole "desysop" thing rather moot now...doesn't it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Now that a winner has been declared, perhaps an uninvolved admin wouldn't mind closing this more-heat-than-light thread... ] ]] 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Discussion of your analysis is '''half''' the issue. Discussion of the actions you took after your analysis is the other half. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : What actions were those? Please feel free to point them out. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the conclusion of your analysis the action you took was blocking. Your analysis told you there was edit-warring going on. There were a variety of actions you could have taken to stop it. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, admittedly there were other possible solutions. But I made a judgement call based on the intelligence I had gathered that was well-within the realm of admin responsibility, and provided the rationale when requested untik ]. There are always multiple ways to resolve something - I chose one valid path, and other people would have taken other paths. That's both a good thing and bad thing. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] - Blocking the users was disruptive to the wikia (and not at all needed within wikia rules), as this chat and others such as on your chat page and the blocked users chat page clearly indicates and your actions continues to be disruptive due to your refusal to accept the obvious and walk away. ] (]) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Mosfetfaser}} Wikia? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is apparently ] editing logged out ]. I informed {{U|Jayron32}} (the admin that blocked it last time in April), and they told me to come here. Here are some diffs: . --] <sup>]</sup> 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like the bot has logged back in. I unblocked the IP after realizing the block could cause misdirected XFF blocks. However, what seems concerning is how the bot is still editing after the ]. I'm not the most experienced with bots and would welcome the input of others. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::After a quick chat with Deskana, I've blocked the bot. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm confused. Is the bot making bad edits? If not then it seems churlish to block it simply because the stop button doesn't work - especially as that stops it working ''logged in'' and not ''logged out'' - precisely the reverse of what we want. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>06:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::: Agreed - Is the bot making bad edits ? '''Then''' it should be blocked, but if it's doing what it's supposed to do, then there's no problem (even if it's logged out ) ]'' 10:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue is twofold. First, the bot was performing edits while logged out. It's my understanding from the bot policy that this should not occur and that the use of extensions such as ] should be implemented. Second, the bot was performing edits logged in while the shut off was in place, which makes it noncompliant with its own emergency protocol. There's even a message on the bot's page that encourages admins to block it if it is malfunctioning. I'm not trying to be churlish or pedantic. It's simply a case of the bot not functioning as it is intended. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 15:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree that the latter (emergency shutoff not working) would justify blocking the bot; however, the first wouldn't - if the only malfunction in the bot is that it would edit when not logged in, then blocking it would do no good to stop the trouble. Even in the case of bots, blocks should only be used to prevent malfunctionm edits or unapproved tasks - and merely editing while logged out some of the time doesn't constitute either of these the rest of the time. ] ] 18:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In short, if we can't trust that it will stop editing when told to, we can't trust that it will follow other instructions properly as well. The operators are good and reliable, so of course we're not accusing them of bad faith, but they've apparently made some mistake that temporarily makes the bot undependable. Nobody's going to object to an unblock once the operators say that the coding problems are fixed. ] (]) 22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I take the reverse view, if anything. Editing logged out is bad, because 1. it gives the impression that we allow bot edits from IPs, 2. the edits are not accountable which bot edits should be. OK in this case we ''know'' it's CB III so we could let it slide if we thought that the downside from having it not functioning outweighs point 1. | |||
| ::::::But bots are not like HAL or te computer in the Forbin Project, they do not become "untrustworthy", if the "emergency stop" (which in many bots redirects to the admin block function anyway) doesn't work, the bot is not going to start trying to take over the encyclopaedia - it left this thread after all. (Or is it trying to lull us into a false sense of security?) The admin block is still there for a real malfunction. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::::Untrustworthy in the sense that we can't trust the code. Someone accidentally removed from the bot's code the instruction (or part of the instruction) to stop editing when the shutoff is activated. Since we know that they made that mistake, we can't trust that they made no other mistakes, and we can't trust that this mistake won't have other unexpected effects. With that in mind, we can't let the bot edit until someone's confirmed that the mistake is resolved. ] (]) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::When an editor is as prolific as Cluebot, its activity is meaningful not only at the level of individual edits but also statistically. Letting it edit logged out results in a distorted picture of what's happening on the entire wiki. So it should be blocked until it logs back in. ] (]) 05:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's the problem: As I understand it (which is doubtless an oversimplification), 10.68.xx.xx is the internal network, and therefore blocking ''anything'' in 10.68 risks collateral damage, possibly including break-the-whole-site network damage. It's not some IP from halfway across the globe that you're blocking from Misplaced Pages's servers; you'd be blocking the system from itself. Blocking the account is useless, because it's not using the account. | |||
| :::What we need is for people to figure out how this is happening and fix it, not to block stuff without regard for either the possible consequences of the block or the effectiveness of the block. ] (]) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Is there any legitimate reason to allow anonymous editing from private IP addresses? What would be the downside to soft-blocking all of them indefinitely? Same question applies to the external IPs of toolservers. ] (]) 23:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for forgiveness == | |||
| More than a year has passed since I was blocked for stupidily threatening ]. I'm from Argentina and after an edit-war, I said the following: ''"If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..."'' or so I said. I well-deserved to be blocked because I was beyond immature and stupid. Then, I created another account to start anew as a respected user. Well, the sock-puppetry accusations began and I couldn't ever again work on Misplaced Pages. I deny sock-puppetry since I don't, I ''can't'' use blocked accounts and I'm not interested in having more than one account. So, I'm now asking to be ''forgiven'' and allowed to create another account and start anew. Thank you indeed. --] (]) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't even remember it, but if you're here to do good work, go do that. --]''''']''''' 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I can see, I would support the editor coming back. ] | ] | ] 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you Jayron for giving me a second and last opportunity!, I've been working in the shadows and doing well with ] but I'm afraid of going ''public'' (i.e. nominating candidates for ]) and getting blocked for the alleged "sock-puppetry" that never occurred since I never used two accounts at the same time. Who can guarantee me that "Japanesehelper", my only account, will not be blocked? Thank you.--] (]) 23:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one can guarantee anything, but the person you attacked has given his blessing for you to be back, one other person thinks that is the best unbureaucratic way to deal with the problem (me), and assuming you just edit and stay out of trouble and not war or get into fights, I don't see a problem. Assuming others don't argue against this solution, you could just point to this discussion. ] | ] | ] 23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Perfect. You can see my record with "Japanesehelper", it's cleaner than a brand new t-shirt. I was immature when that happened. Promise it won't happen ever again. --] (]) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Doesnt sockpuppetry include using new accounts to evade blocks? ] (]) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes and ]. We're not here to mete out perpetual punishment, we're here to build an encyclopedia. This isn't a game. If Japanesehelper wished to be helpful, I am not going to get in their way. --]''''']''''' 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is a legitimate question, but again I agree with Jayron. When someone appears to be very sincere, apologetic and sets a clear future path for their behavior, and the person who was on the receiving end last time (Jayron) gives their blessing, I think we owe it to ourselves and them to take a chance. ] | ] | ] 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Let's not prevent good work from being done. Probably a bad use of clean start, but ] - a productive editor need not be a perfect editor, both in content or character. ] (]) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Probably worth verifying whether this is an IP sock of ], a racist ultranationalist extremist and sociopathic liar who in the spare time off wiki writes things like "fucking mohammedan apes and baby-killers", "Fuck you !! stupid Islamofascist terrorist ape dressed in rags. I hope you and all your family of monkeys shall receive what you deserve when Israel kick your coward ass. Asshole! ISRAEL WIN", "Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim", "¡¡¡God bless Nakba!!! (Jewish victory over the war of extermination that the Arabs brought upon them 65 years ago). Never in history was a "catastrophe" so well deserved! God bless Israel. Keep strong, united, prepared and brave.", ""palestine" does not exist, never did and never will", "Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM | |||
| ISRAEL WIN". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I should add that Japanesehelper does not look like AndresHerutJaim, but ] via both accounts and Argentina based IPs has been such a major problem over the past few years in the ] topic area and its suburbs that experienced editors will assume that any Buenos Aires based IP active in the ARBPIA topic area that appears to be advocating for Israel or against Palestine or Iran is a sock. Is there a diff for the comment "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 05:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to agree some idea of who this editor actually is would be helpful, at least if we are going to give any indication they may be allowed to stick around. | |||
| :I don't know much about the editor Sean.hoyland mentions above, but ] is looking a lot like ] who abused many sockpuppets ] + ] + many which were either blocked per ] or which unblocked but had their contributions deleted). While obviously it was never confirmed by a CU, they did sometimes edit under an Argentinian IP. Particularly in their later stages, they seemed to mostly troll the Reference Desk, Help Desk and Teahouse. But they did hang around ITN at various stages. Beyond simple trolling, they did seem to have a particular interest in Nazi Germany and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer similar to Japanesehelper. | |||
| :They also claimed to be Japanese at least once ] with a corresponding interest in Japanese related topics although I think they showed the same interest even with other identities. Kotjaps claims to be Japanese weren't particularly believable. IIRC they claimed to be living in Japan with some elaborate back story like being a 55 year old former hikikomori who's father beat them yet never showed any actual evidence of understanding Japanese. (I can't recall if they ever explicitly said they spoke Japanese but I think they did repeatedly saying they were not a native English speaker, which may be true regardless, which combined with their claims about their identity lead to an obvious conclusion. And even IIRC when Japanese editors suggested they ask their question in Japanese they never said they didn't actually speak Japanese.) Or really any evidence of knowing that much about Japan you would expect from someone who lived there. (And of course, it's very likely they were editing from an Argentinian IP.) | |||
| :As stated above, it seemed clear they were trolling. Over time, it became fairly obvious they already knew the answer to many of their 'questions' or otherwise didn't care. Furthermore, beyond the Japanese identity, they pretended to be from all over the world usually mentioning stuff in 'my country' or similar. In particular, in many of their later identities, they claimed to be from tiny island/s nations, or at least small poor places you wouldn't generally expect many wikipedians from. | |||
| :I don't know if they ever said the stuff about "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian" to Jayron32, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't the reason why the Timothyhere round of socks was blocked. It could be that the AndresHerutJaim and Timothyhere group are the same editor and no one noticed before. I would also note that if it's either editor, their indication their disruption stopped over a year ago isn't particularly believable. (I believe there were more recent Timothyhere socks than the late June ones but I'm lazy to look for them.) | |||
| :I'm not suggesting an immediate block since I'm not seeing an obvious signs of disruption under the new account. And if it is Timothyhere they seem to have given up on pretending to be from places they clearly aren't. But if it's either or both editor/s, lying about their history and why they were blocked is not a good sign. And they should expect to be on a short leash not because of anything to do with forgiveness but because we have good reason to think they can't be trusted to continue to edit. | |||
| :Edit: The most recent probably trolling from Timothyhere I can find is ]. It's nothing particularly wrong but given the history it was hard to believe their claim they were "working for a psychology project on the case regarding Kato". Also looking a bit more, I think Timothyhere had an interest in terrorism and in particular Al Qaeda under their many identities, in particular in relation to Canada. But I don't recall much interest in the Israel-Palestinian issue or Iran. | |||
| :] (]) 06:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not the correct process for requesting an unblock. The editor says their account was blocked 1 year ago and they apparently set up a sock account to continue editing shortly afterwards. They have not even told us what the original account was, or how they were blocked. Furthermore, if they continue editing, they are not normally allowed to make a clean start but must keep the old account after it has been unblocked. My suggestion is to close this discussion thread, block the IP and Japanesehelper, and ask them to make the request on their talk page or, if that is blocked, through email. At that time, a CU can be conducted. ] (]) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **In a nutshell, it is easier to watch someone when they are in the open, and the liklihood of them becoming productive is higher as well. My opinion hasn't changed. I won't block and would oppose anyone else at this juncture. Wait and see, monitor, hope for the best. ] | ] | ] 11:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Redlink category adder == | |||
| I don't want to make a big deal about this, and I would take it somewhere else if I knew where that place was, but the user CmdrDan appears to believe that simply adding a category to an article creates the category, so he's added a number of redlinked categories to articles. Can someone who's more familiar with categories than I am have a talk with him? Thanks. ] (]) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Left a note, HTH. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>07:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding ''Falun Gong 2'' (]) == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has superseded the topic ban imposed on {{user|Ohconfucius}} in the ] case by ]: | |||
| {{quotebox|1=The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the ] is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Misplaced Pages behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : ] | |||
| == Psst, bit of a backlog at ] == | |||
| Thanks.--] (]) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey admins, come on == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Done. Thank you all. ] (]) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ...and help a brother/sister out nextdoor, at ], section "Undue retaliation, provocation and/or vandalism on Mitsubishi Magna article by User:OSX". You need to help me figure out what to do with these two editors, one of whom was at 27R, while the other kept their count low by way of sockage. I already did the heavy lifting. ] (]) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Archive.is headache == | |||
| Archive.is URLs ]. But the task was not properly done. As a result, it has become a big headache. Someone makes non-constructive edits/vandalism in an article, you try to revert it and find you can not do it, as the article contains archive.is URL. | |||
| I reported it ], where it was observed only "rollback" option is working here. But, we can not use rollback always. | |||
| This has become a big headache. I just had to just to make a reversion with an edit summary. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps it's time to remove them from the blacklist? The concern was that archive.is might (horror) use adverts, and might spam archive links to WP. The admin of archive.is replied that we could, if we wished, make archive.org backups of archive.is and use those. They do not appear to be out to take advantage of Misplaced Pages, and indeed are providing a valuable service. If their site became unacceptable to link to in the future we could remove the links very rapidly. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :: I have no idea why its on the blacklist and it seems to be shooting us in the foot. One bad person should not equate to wholesale blacklisting of a valid and important archival service. It seems like a knee-jerk decision was made and the damage done is creating quite a fuss and hurting our articles. I've seen plenty of issues with Archival services not picking up or losing access to Gamespot's new robots.txt (Archive.org in this case). I also note that a while back there was some discussion about funding and acquiring such a service - but I'm a bit out of the loop on that. We can very easily control our links at will from such sites, I don't see the need to have an entire beneficial service blacklisted. ] (]) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I remember correctly, part of the blacklisting was the archive.is folks using an unapproved bot account which was blocked (for being an unapproved bot). Then evading that block with IP addresses. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 20:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Archive sites are akin to redirectors, though. Is there any content that is on archive.is and not archive.org? If not, we probably don't need it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That kind of statement reduces a valid option and Archive.org has missed many key sources to 404 that I wish I could selectively archive. Now, an unapproved bot and socking is one thing, but it seems knee-jerk reaction to a problem. Would you do the same if and blacklist all of Archive.org because someone used an authorized bot to mass add links? ] (]) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: <small>Edit conflict</small> Plenty, I'm afraid. We should discourage people from removing the links without replacement, as the archice.is URL is vital to being able to determine what the original was, and therefore finding a replacement. ] (]) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There are several differences between archive.is and archive.org. Archive.org is a crawler and gets everything when it visits a page but it does follow robots.txt. Archive.is claims they only archives pages they are told to archive but ignores robots.txt. Webcite is closer in functionality to archive.is, but they do follow robots.txt. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 20:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Archive.is is currently the best and seemingly only option for GameSpot archives at this time. They regularly 404 and are altered and now have Robots.txt which makes Archive.org not serve the page even if they HAD the archive previous. See ]. ] (]) 20:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I mentioned ], I haven't found any good alternatives to archive.is yet. For example, web.archive.org and webcitation.org failed to archive {{URL|beyonce.com/credits}} properly – only archive.is renders the page's content correctly. ''']''' (]) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* ], what do you suggest to do if you want to revert a non-constructive edit, and want to add an edit summary too. Please see . The editor, being a film production house member, was removing "negative reviews, reception" from the article.<br/>Either remove them from blacklist, if that is not possible, okay, I have not problem, then appoint a bot to remove all archive.is URLs from Misplaced Pages. Currently it is a big trouble.<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 23:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{outdent|:::::::}} | |||
| *The reason archive.is was blacklisted was because the people running archive.is ''utterly destroyed'' any possible sense of good faith with their actions (spamming links, unapproved bot, block evasion, etc.) - the links were being added in a blatantly promotional fashion, ''instead'' of simply correcting broken links that were easily findable and fixable. It was indistinguishable from spam, and it was treated as such, and frankly after their display I, personally, cannot consider any archive.is link trustworthy - after the display of what they did here, who knows what they have on their site that might be lurking to infect my computer? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow:. Carefully parsing the above and rewriting for provable truth, we have: Someone acting on Archive.is's behalf employed block-evasion techniques to flood-add both Archive.is and Archive.org archive links preemptive to link failures (read: many, but not all, of the edits were needed yet). Optimistically, it was a technological partial proof-of-concept. Pessimistically, it was (weakly) promotional, and (strongly) unapproved behavior per our bot consensus guidelines. I found the edits to be 100% accurate, overall helpful though sometimes unnecessary, and in every case unharmful, though technically against bot policy and procedure. There's a tendency to throw the baby (bot-added edits which are helpful-but-against-procedure) right out with the bathwater, and I strongly object to this (insert religion-based decision process epithet here) bullshit. However, and be very clear about this: Archive.is was ''blacklisted'' because a narrow majority of easily-frightened RFC participants were led witless down a banhammer garden path by a couple of admins who scaremongered and nerdraged about a couple of hundred IP edits. Tempest, meet teapot. Seriously, this wasn't as bad as {{U|The Bushranger}} and {{U|Kww}} would have you all believe. That said, I support blocking addition of archive.is links ''by new editors'', '''''but''''' I support allowing such links when added by editors with high edit counts and low deleted-edit counts in good standing (meaning: responsible, accountable additions). I have NO fear of archive.is or the site owners, anything The Bushranger says notwithstanding. --] (]) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...all I can say is "wow". (Well, I can also say I find your accusations of bad faith disturbing.) - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Oh, pshaw. That's not counterargument, that's just garbage, and ''not appropriate admin behavior.'' You exaggerated the seriousness of the situation in order to get the zero-sum "win", with the actual effect of yeah, you "won", but Misplaced Pages lost, and archive.is was totally unaffected. Great job hurting Misplaced Pages ''worse'' than any possible spam did. I think it's called "friendly fire." The only (quite narrowminded and blinkered, in my opinion) reason which remains for blacklisting is the purely petty bureaucratic-minded outcry of "It was unapproved! He didn't follow procedure! We cannot allow that to stand, even if the links are valid!" I've always disliked this bent logic, but have extremely noisily begrudged its applicability in cases of ''causing other editors extra work,'' which is not the case here. Each and every one of those archive.org and archive.is links would have been allowed to stand if added slowly by editors in good standing. --] (]) 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is all from memory of reading about it after the fact, so I could be mistaken: The only things I saw indicating that the WP account, ], was actually controlled by the owner of archive.is were statements made by that account on a couple of talk pages. I did not see anything that indicated there was outside confirmation of ownership, nor that there was a statement like: I'm going to make changes X to archive.is and then changes X happened. I only saw statements similar to: I have made changes (i.e. mentioning them after the fact). To me there is no indication that the accounts ] and ] were, in fact, owned by the person running archive.is. It was certain that the person controlling the account wanted it to be believed that ] was controlled by the owner of archive.is. | |||
| ::On the other hand there was no statement by owner of either archive.is denying ownership of those accounts. In addition, there was no statement by the owner of archive.is nor those accounts as to explaining the issues brought up at the ]. | |||
| ::The RfC proceeded on the assumption that the owner of archive.is was the person controlling the bot and the actions of whatever was making the similar edits from multiple IPs. | |||
| ::The owner of the account, with respect to the bot, went out of their way to perform actions which were significant violations of policy when easy alternatives were available within policy to accomplish nearly the identical goals, but with something of a delay. Specifically, the whole issue developed out of the use use of an unapproved bot which was in the approvals process and likely to be approved and its edits welcomed, if the process had been followed. | |||
| ::After the bot was blocked there was then the issue of the apparent use of a large number of IPs from multiple countries to run the unapproved and account-blocked bot. It was considered by many to very likely that the use of the IPs was not authorized by the owners of the IPs and probably illegal. — ] (]) 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wow... this is a bit stunning. I see allegations thrown around left and right and a single user making very broad legal allegations without substantiating them or providing evidence. This is all heresay and the situation is completely without merit. The issue has long been "resolved". First of all, the edit filter is hidden, but why? Secondly and more important, the edit filter has long not worked on the ".today" links. If there was any valid attack or ongoing need for this filter it would have been apparent. By all means, it is time to get rid of this edit filter. We are damaging our own articles and I see absolutely no threat from the site. ] (]) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see what's "stunning" here. There's no doubt that there was an attack, and no doubt that someone was using techniques that violated both Misplaced Pages policy and actual law to insert the links. Thank you for pointing out that people have been bypassing the blocklist with an alternate id: it no longer works.—](]) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do, however, agree that we do need to run a bot that removes the links. I keep trying to find the time to do so, but the task of remaining employed keeps interfering.—](]) 05:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: But the attack has long since halted and its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability and not to mention thousands of articles actually being used. There seems to be a growing consensus here that this matter needs to be revisited and I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles, including ones that are already Good or Featured content. This applies greatly to the ] project and at least many other news sites. As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Misplaced Pages just in the daily operation of this blacklist that should have been revisited months ago. I'm all for defending against malicious attacks, but it seems its outlived its usefulness and is purely punitive. You closed a hole on something that was already known, but unexploited. Since the "attack" has stopped, the blacklist's continued implementation provides no demonstrable benefit. ] (]) 05:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It stopped ''because'' it was blacklisted. ''its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability...I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles...As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Misplaced Pages''. How? In what way is it causing "degration to article verifiability"? How is it "damaging Misplaced Pages"? If archive.is didn't exist, would there be any problem with following ]/]: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online"? So why is there a problem now? Why is there a "growing consensus" that we should reward someone who attempted to use Misplaced Pages to promote their archive service, then used a bot attack to push it when caught, by promoting the use of said service? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The point you seem to be missing, Chris, is that having tens of thousands of links to a site operated by someone that uses botnets leaves us open to further trouble. Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?—](]) 06:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} Perhaps it stopped back in November because it was blacklisted, but the identity of the attacker doesn't seem to have been proven. I'm sure someone can check Archive.is and see its malwarefree and that is more than I can say for some ''other'' references. I've seen many a reference be turned to hardcore pornography and/or go to a site filled with malicious scripts. Unless proven otherwise, the issue with Archive.is is non-existent. Also, a demonstrable workaround has been present for nearly two months (at least April 14, 2014) and all without "attack". The circumstances merit a revisiting and perhaps even a lifting of the blacklist, and it would be trivial to reinstate if such an attack was done. The ] was controversial and not a clear consensus, but I also think its too late to decide to remove 20,000+ valid working archival links '''now'''. ] (]) 06:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's interesting to note that, to date, only the English Misplaced Pages gives a damn about archive.is shenanigans. No other Misplaced Pages project blacklists archive.is, or finds any fault with it. These archives are used throughout the Chinese and Russian Wikipedias, as an alternative to WebCite and Wayback. In fact, . If other projects don't find problems with archive.is, then why are we? --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 08:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, so you're saying that Albanaian Wikimedia (with more than 10,000 articles) doesn't blacklist it, nor does Icelandic Wikpedia or Old Church Slavonic Misplaced Pages? Well, then certainly we should follow suit.<p>Despite this specious argument (we are English Misplaced Pages, and are ''sui generis''), I do think that archive.is should probably be unblacklisted, despite their earlier misbehavior. We don't want to hurt the encyclopedia just because some outsiders have acted like assholes. ] (]) 10:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You just made an ] there - nowhere did I mention any sub-10,000 Misplaced Pages projects, you made that implication on your own. I pointed out that multiple Misplaced Pages projects of significant size didn't have any qualms with archive.is, and even still to this day allow links to it - this probably suggests that here on enwiki, we think too much about morality instead of actually getting the job done. As has been mentioned above, ''"Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?"'' - I assure you that nobody would even think about asking such a question on zhwiki; if the tool gets the job done, it doesn't matter if a murderer or a saint created the tool. At least, that's the sentiment that exists outside of enwiki.<p>Just because ] murdered his wife, that doesn't make ] a bad file system (in fact, in theory it works much better than ]), but it's often the case that people make such arguments, and this archive.is case is quite similar. Look at archive.is as a tool to get things done, and ] who did bad things in the past. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 11:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Do not use a bot to remove links.''' Per ]: ''the removal of Archive.is links be done with care and clear explanation''. The only way we have of replacing links is to examine the ones that are there. The title of the page and the publisher allows us to use a search engine to find if the page has moved elsewhere. The text of the page can also be used in this way. Given the original URL, it may be possible to find the site on archive using the accessdate. It is very, very difficult to repair references without the original. ] (]) 09:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I can not always manually clean-up archive.is links just to revert vandalism. If I see I can not revert edits because of archive.is URLs, I'll leave it, unless the article is very important to me. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Just a note. As closer, it wasn't my intent to prevent bots from removing the links. I did suggest that any removal should be explained--ideally including a link in the edit summary. But that can be done automatically. Also, I've certainly no objection to seeing if consensus has changed on this. ] (]) 12:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::**Nor was it my intent to say that a bot could not be used. If you had one that replaced the links with ones from another archive, that would be okay. I only meant one that removed links without replacement, which I would treat as a rogue bot. ] (]) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::***I'll disagree here. The intent was to remove the links--there was no requirement that they be replaced (though I agree it would be ideal). ] (]) 05:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| --><noinclude> | |||
| * I have a question about the ignoring of robots.txt files. Is this in any way equivalent to a copyvio? Perhaps not if the archiving is always in response to a specific request, but an authoritative answer here to that effect would be helpful. Perhaps ] could comment? --] (]) 13:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't think there is an authoritative answer. It's the lawyer/legal-opinion problem. There are other problems. Robots.txt has no defined purpose. Oh, it has a use, and an effect when applied, but the ''reason for using it'' is not required to be stated, so the reason is never stated. Helpful stated reasons might include: "Original author-publisher contract did not include archives", "Publication rights to article content expired", "Owner wishes to monetize archives", "New domain owner does not wish his new brand to be associated with the old domain's content", "New domain-squatting owner wishes to extort money from prior domain owners to lift robots.txt". Two of these are arguably copyright related with a corresponding best-practice Misplaced Pages answer, three are definitely ''not''. --] (]) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's right; there are many reasons why Robots.txt is used. The most common is on archive sites themselves, to prevent recursive archiving. ] (]) 22:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| * I will say that all the protestations that "it must have been somebody else, you can't ''prove'' it was the site owner" are nothing but hopeful nonsense. The edits matched Rotlink's. They came from a swarm of international IPs at a speed and breadth that couldn't have been anything but a botnet of compromised computers. Lexein, an editor that was fighting desperately to keep the archive.is links, communicated with the site owner and received nothing but evasiveness: never a denial. Whatever the utility of the site may be, it's run by someone that has no qualms about invading computers that belong to other people. That's not a place to link to, because clicking the link provides a known bad actor access to the client machine. As for benlisquare's argument: no, murdering your wife doesn't make you a bad filesystem designer or compromise the quality of your filesystem. It ''does'' mean that only a foolish woman would marry you.—](]) 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <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 == | |||
| I think that first of all, Misplaced Pages should have it's own archive like ''Archive.is''. Archive.is is much much better than ] or ] - first of all because it automatically archives all the articles the Misplaced Pages is quoting. Secondly - because it's versatile and has an easy interface. So, Archive.is should be set the standard for such an archiving website. From a previous conversation I understood that Archive.is storage capacity will be exceeded in maximum two years, and then - no more free archiving for Misplaced Pages. Verifiability of Misplaced Pages's articles is quite important for humanity, it might sound inflated to some, but I think it's a safety net against re-writing history, against becoming a ]n world. How much it costs for Misplaced Pages to have it's own archive by the way? Maybe we can raise funds, or we should start a Kickstarter project for it. I am ready to offer some support, maybe there are others like me too. Or maybe Misplaced Pages can pay to Archive.is (or to some other company) for keeping the archive, maybe it will cost less than Misplaced Pages having it's own archiving servers to take care of - in other words, to outsource the job. To this is such an important matter that, if I would be the head of Misplaced Pages, I would try to convince masons (I understand they rule the world and they are shaping the world's future) to finance such an important task - money are not a problem for them :). | |||
| {{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I really hope Misplaced Pages will have it's own archive but until that happens, Misplaced Pages should take advantage of such a great and free offer like Archive.is. I am ready to be part of a future lobby group for solving the archiving issue on Misplaced Pages. There can't be copyright problems, since Misplaced Pages is not trying to make profit from this, but it's just trying to preserve history, I think any judge with minimum common sense would understand that. — ] (]) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| : Kww your argument and stance are not being dismissed, but it is unproven and condemning an entire resource because of some past circumstance. There is no threat and that past issue is resolved, but what would it take for you (personally) to allow Archive.is links again? Until Misplaced Pages has its own archival system, we should not be cutting off a key site (which is irreplaceable at this point) simply because of an unauthorized bot that "spammed" links on a bunch of open proxies. And I keep seeing that if the bot was approved, and it likely would have been, would have been a non-issue. The blacklist can be reinstated easily, but I see more users making compelling arguments to lift it and see what happens. ] (]) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me. | |||
| :: Kww's argument is, however, compelling. We have been here before. I am surprised this is not blacklisted at Meta, actually. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There is no evidence of a malicious ] and there is no evidence any illegal act has been committed, these are extremely serious allegations and the issue should have been passed immediately to the foundation's team if there was evidence otherwise. By absolutely no measurement can I attribute the word "botnet" to this action, by volume or action, and I must dismiss it as just plain alarmist. And still, that portion of the debate is irrelevant to lifting the blacklist now that the "attack" has stopped. There is no threat, so why are discussing it like it is ongoing and that it was "malicious" in nature. The claims are unsubstantiated and are a gross exaggeration of the incident. ] (]) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no evidence of an illegal botnet? Are you serious? And no, discussion of the fact that botnets were used to push links into Misplaced Pages is not irrelevant and will never be irrelevant.—](]) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Did you look at the massive list of IP's used to push these links in to Misplaced Pages after the unauthorized bot was blocked? They're from all over the place! Yeah, no evidence of a botnet. Sorry, there is absolutely no reason to trust the people behind archive.is. They don't care or respect others. There are copyright issues when they archive material blocked by a robots.txt file. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 17:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Getting beyond the point, but the use of proxies and such are not ''"botnets"''. This alarmist stance has no concrete evidence to connect it to the owners of Archive.is, its conjecture and heresay. Secondly, you are making personal attacks on the site owners and pile on accusations of copyright infringement and such when Misplaced Pages has no control or interest in it. We gladly and willingly supply links to an ] and link to ] which is just as notorious. The issue is months old and there has been no threat or continued attack - by all means, we should consider the issue resolved and lift the blacklist. Objectively - upon what grounds would you agree to lift the blacklist? Let's try to come to some common ground to resolve this issue. ] (]) 17:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Without taking any stance on this subject, no ] discussion is going to affect current policy. Your arguments might have merit, Chris, but this is a larger discussion that has to occur elsewhere, say in an RfC or at the Village Pump, not here. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''We gladly and willingly supply links to an illicit drug marketplace and link to 4chan which is just as notorious'' - If you believe this ] should be blacklisted, then ]. ''accusations of copyright infringement and such when Misplaced Pages has no control or interest in it.'' - We do, for the same reason we ]: contributory copyright infringement. While assuming good faith on the part of the site's operators is all well and good, ], and the behavior of the people representing the site utterly destroyed any and all good faith the community had regarding archive.is; the reason "there is no threat or continued attack" is ''because'' the site was blacklisted. We cannot, ], assume that lifing the blacklist will not result in a resumption of the spamming. It's as simple as that, I'm afraid; after the display that led to the blacklisting, I ''cannot'' trust any link to archive.is. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| The difference between using a botnet to spam links, and the use of proxies to evade blocks in order to spam links, is a difference without a distinction. The main argument for use of archive.is appears to be that it did not honour robots.txt so archived many pages that legitimate archives did not. Anyone else see the issue here? From my experience as a spam blacklist regular here and on meta in the past, much ''much'' less blatant spamming has resulted in global blacklisting before now. This is really very simple: someone came to Misplaced Pages to drive traffic to their ad-supported site, and continued to do this after it was made clear to them that it was inappropriate, including using an unapproved bot. Ideally we need a bot run to clean up their droppings, there are over 22,000 links at present. But if we have to clean them up by hand, then so be it. I just removed a couple of dozen from one article. Nuke 'em as you find 'em I reckon. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that everyone should peaceably engage in discussion and civilly discuss it without all the rhetoric. The claims over "ads" and "malware" are utterly baseless and unsubstantiated. There is surprisingly bad faith expressed here and the owner has never stated it was his own doing, but was aware that it was blocked. Above, it was stated that no mass-purging should be done. Revisiting an issue half a year later is by all means warranted, and without labeling some unknown person an international criminal. ] (]) 02:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::We have been discussing this peacfully. You have provided no plausible non-criminal explanation that would explain a network that included residential IP addresses in third-world countries. Trying to conflate that with a legitimate proxy network is simply wishful thinking, and trying to describe people's well-founded suspicions as "baseless" is (dare I say it?) rhetoric, as is your apparent claim that people have to confess to misbehaviour before people can recognize it as misbehaviour.—](]) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::How can you tell that an IP is a "residential IP address" as opposed to a commercial one? I can't tell you that for this country. ] (]) 04:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Kww, I said the claims over some ads and malware were baseless and unsubstantiated. There has not been any mass-hijacking, malware or any ad issue to speak of - in the past and now. Much of your argument hinged on the site '''''possibly''''' being used to openly attack users with an active bot net and such. That's a big if. A more mundane explanation than an "illicit botnet" exists in the form of archival requests served via a proxy or script. A few of your RFC "problem IPs" even in the first post did not even make an edit either. Why did you repeatedly name many of these non-editors as "evidence" and from how did they identify with this "bot net"? Examples: 117.223.161.182 - 188.251.236.114 - 85.66.241.59 - 89.228.46.37 - 60.50.51.210 - 122.178.159.163 - 109.175.88.133 You are sticking to the vast unknowns and possibilities some 6 months later. It seems more obvious that these archival requests were being fed (albeit improperly) via some script and accessed by "people" on demand. The whole "botnet" attack thing doesn't seem plausible given the jumps in time and topic as a breaching move. Despite the whole Archive.is blacklist not working for months and the multitude of ways around it, are you still going to say that its '''''because''''' of your blacklist that the problem is resolved? Given all the information we should be able to come to a de-escalation of the blacklist or a temporary lifting and see how this goes. I don't fault you for being cautious, but I do have big concerns about the thousands of articles which are being impacted by this blacklist. ] (]) 05:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], by examining the DNS records and routing groups associated with the IP address. ], several of the IP addresses were prevented from making the edits by filters, so the contributions do not show in the contribution history. For example | |||
| ::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:AbuseLog/9321724 (India) | |||
| ::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:AbuseLog/9205305 (Hungary) | |||
| ::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=94.155.181.118 (Bulgaria) | |||
| ::::IP addresses in multiple countries making exactly the same edit, hammering away on one article day after day. It was the repeated attempts to insert the link in ] that first drew my attention.—](]) 05:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| * Like the others commenting above, I frequently come across changes I cannot revert because there exists links that I cannot resave, and I'm sure others may be frustrated if they came across it and could not understand why. I dealt with the one archive.is link I came across yesterday by commenting it out without the "http://" – not the best or a long-term solution, but I felt it would do the least damage. I felt that removing it outright would be to damage the project. We really ought not to get too overcome by continued paranoia and metaphysical angst. It was a very ] who said it matters not that the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. Damage is being done to this encyclopaedia every day this blacklisting is in place, so we need to be a much stronger dose of pragmatism. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 05:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ]. | |||
| *I find it interesting that the same people who claim the blacklisting was some sort of hysterical knee-jerk are the ones saying things like "damage is being done to Misplaced Pages every day the blacklist is in place". It's not. ]. And if you're concerned about a link with a robots.txt strangling the Internet Archive's archive, there's WebCite for that. I frankly find it downright disturbing that there are so many people who are urging we reward the bad behavior of the people who ''spammed and, when caught spamming, attacked'' Misplaced Pages to push their website. Yes, "the crisis has passed and the attacks are not continuing". The reason for this is ''because the site was blacklisted''. ''IF'' someone is willing to make contact with the people who run archive.is, ''if'' they are willing to accept and apologise for their prior conduct, ''if'' they are willing to provide a good-faith assurance that they have changed so that such conduct will not occur again, and ''if'' we can be certain that their running an end-around sites' robots.txt files would not make Misplaced Pages a party to ], ''then'' we can open a RfC on removing archive.is from the blacklist (and, heck, in that case I'd support it). Otherwise, just as a blocked editor who is unrepentant stays blocked, a website that engaged in decidedly shady practices to push themselves on Misplaced Pages stays blacklisted. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 10:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: This can be summed up simply as: Webcite doesn't work with it - Archive.is is the only known one that properly captures pages and avoids robots.txt. And you are demanding that someone, who may not have anything to do with it, take the blame and apologize for it and act as some legal shield. We link to some of the worst sites in the internet, prominently, but the matter of Archive.is "copyright infringement" status would be for Foundation's legal team - not us. I understand that at the time there was a real and pressing need for it, given the circumstances, but that's past now and real editors are being affected. This is far from punishing one bad editor - its punishing everyone long after the problem stopped. Its easy to be a naysayer, but if everyone is so confident in their claims, surely ] would be appropriate. And that's all I ask. ] (]) 15:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{ping|The Bushranger}}You say all we need to do is follow procedure to replace duff links. It's fine if it's one or two links, but it isn't always possible if the link is already dead. I'd just ask you to please be a part of the solution instead of part of the continuing problem – the easiest would be removing archive.is from the blacklist and see if the problem re-emerges. If it doesn't, we need to look no further, and are able to get on with normal life. Alternatively, someone can set up a bot to systematically replace existing archive.is urls with valid webcitation or wayback captures. Would you be prepared to undertake either?? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So your solution would be to have hundreds of thousands of links to someone that abuses people's computers and then apologize ''afterwards'' if those connections are used illicitly? And no, ] isn't appropriate: it's reasonable to take a risk when all we have to do is clean up this site, because that's well within our power. It's irresponsible to put others at risk.—](]) 17:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Show us proof that the Archive.is website is a malicious attack website. There is no concrete proof that the owner of the website conducted any attack against Misplaced Pages - its all conjecture. I support what was done at the time, but there has been no evidence raised to support the continuation of the blacklist. Serious allegations call for serious evidence and I am not convinced that Archive.is conducted a massive "illicit botnet" to attack Misplaced Pages with malware and trojans, especially since there has never been any malware associated with the site - or ads. I'm left to the conclusion that someone did something wrong, but that party is unknown, and the Archive.is website never has been a threat to Misplaced Pages or our users. If you can show proof that the owner was behind it few people would question the continuation of the blacklist. ] (]) 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Very few people question the evidence or the continuance of the blacklist today, nor is concrete proof required before taking defensive steps.—](]) 17:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Am I missing something? Should we not replace the (potential copyright violation) archive.is links by a link to the original (dead) web site and an archive date? Does that not preserve all the relevant information against the possibility that (1) archive.is might be unblacklisted or (2) a legitimate archive or personal copy can be found? — ] ] 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: There are over 20,000 links (in itself circumstantial evidence of systemic abuse), so I think we need to find a botmaster to strip them. Most are additive, not replacements. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It is ridiculous to say that 20,000 links to an ''archiving site'' is "evidence of systemic abuse". How many links are there to WebCite, or archive.org? — ] (]) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I remember this well because of the backdrop. With the perennial scary donation request at the top with donation totals that never changed, Webcite made it look like it was about to close down, and the options for similar features to it were few if you want pre-emptive archiving. Fearing its demise, I myself added probably in excess of a hundred archive links to archive.is instead of webcitation, and this was before the alleged spamming incident. The Icelandic site is well thought out, user-friendly, with a one-click tool to archive a page from the toolbar of the browser. Beats Webcite by more than a short head, because with the latter you are still wondering if it is still working 3 minutes and three archive screens later. This advanced functionality is what I believe contributed to the large number of links to that archive and not the spamming, as I believe most of those were blocked and reversed. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{reply to|Ohconfucius}} Just FYI: I created/modified a few bookmarklets to make archiving easier. Bookmarklets for one click archiving to WebCite and archive.org of a page you are viewing are listed at ]. | |||
| :::::::::::Bookmarklets for one click ''searching'' for archives of a page which you have found to be dead are available at ] for archive.org, WebCite and Mementos. | |||
| :::::::::::All of the bookmarklets will open in new tabs instead of disturbing the tab you are wanting to archive or for which you want to find archives. — ] (]) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As has been mentioned, this is not the appropriate forum to have a discussion about implementing the removal of archive.is from the blacklist. There was a ] that archive.is should be blacklisted with the knowledge that it would cause the issues which are being experienced now. Administrators are implementing that consensus. It would be inappropriate for them to decide here to go against that consensus by removing archive.is from the blacklist. If it is desired that archive.is be removed from the blacklist then a new RfC needs to be held with at least as wide participation as the last one to demonstrate a consensus for removal. — ] (]) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The administrators are not bound to a flawed consensus, one resulting from an RFC that was neither promoted to the wider community nor neutrally opened. As a wide user of archive.is I didn't know about the discussion until I found I could no longer add links. ] / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review ]? 23:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seconding the above. If I had known about the RfC, I would have participated in it. Only a close circle of participants were aware of it, and got involved in it, and these people happened to be those who already had prior knowledge about the issue, and thus already had an opinion over it. The RfC was conducted without the overall community being informed, despite being an important decision which covers many, many articles. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 05:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::By "without the overall community being informed", do you mean "listed for on ]"? ] (]) 14:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Heh, looks like I missed that. My mistake, carry on. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrary break === | |||
| * '''2 and a half possibilities and a question''': Considering those bot/accounts were manage by Archive.is owners (yes, I have read, it has not been proven still), I thought there might be three possibilities of their arhive.is link flooding, 1) Web Archive clearly states that they will not use ad unless it is absolutely necessary (ref: latest Meta discussion), but I have not seen any such claim or commercial scope details for Archive.is. Who may say, they may start adding Adsense ads in their pages. 2) the second possibility— they were unaware that[REDACTED] uses "nowfollow" links for external links, most probably they were trying to get thousands of "dofollow" links or they were trying to improve their page ranks. This way or that so many links from Misplaced Pages SURELY makes BIG impact on both Alexa rank and Google PR, and if they start using ads, there will be $$$$. 3) the third reason, they were actually trying to help Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a valid reason, so, it is a "half" reason, "'''Two and a half possibilities'''" in total.<br/>Although in the main post of this thread, I mentioned only "reversion problem" we have been facing, if I see suggestion to unblacklist Archive.is, the first thing I would like to know, "Why?" "Why were they doing so?" — it is still not clear to me. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 07:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also would have participated in the RfC, had I known about it. I only found out about it months later. After the fact, there appeared to be little or no information anywhere other than at the RfC itself that there was a problem with archive.is, or that archive.is was not permitted to be used on enwiki. There was nothing that I saw at any of the help pages dealing with citations and archiving until mid/late March. I know this because I added most of the brief mentions of the situation after I found out about it in ]. | |||
| ::There appears to be a significant disconnect between the level of concern that people are expressing here and how slowly action occurred after the RfC was closed. The RfC was closed at the end of October. | |||
| ::*No large scale effort has yet occurred to remove links from articles. Yes, individual editors have removed them, but nothing on the order that is needed to get 20,000 links. | |||
| ::*Until 10 February 2014 {{diff2|594810499|archive.is was listed}} as one of the services to use for preemptive archiving (although not highly recommended). | |||
| ::*Archive.is was not blacklisted until 4.5 months after the RfC was closed. | |||
| :::*As best I can tell blacklisting was sometime between 18 March 2014 and 20 March 2014. It was not blacklisted at the start of ] and I encountered the new blacklisting of archive.is with {{diff2|600417762|these two}} {{diff2|600418078|edits}}. | |||
| :::*There appears to be a bit of a problem with confused semantics here. It is not possible that it was the ''blacklisting'' of archive.is that stopped the editing by the IPs. The IPs stopped (early October) 5.5 months prior to archive.is being blacklisted (late March). It was the ''blocking'' of the IPs that stopped them from editing, not the blacklisting of archive.is. | |||
| ::I don't have a problem with there being a significant delay between the RfC closure and actions. I am not trying to take anyone to task for not moving forward. I'm just trying to say that the sky did not fall down during the 4.5 months between the close of the RfC and putting archive.is on the blacklist. It is probably not falling down now. We can remain calm and talk this out, even have another RfC, if that is warranted. | |||
| 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 ].}} | |||
| ::If I had been aware of the RfC, I honestly don't know how I would have voted at the time. I'm not certain how I would vote now, as I want more information prior to deciding. The actions that were performed were definitely ones which lead to grave concerns about continued dealings with the responsible party. The fact that it has been reported the owner of archive.is did not deny he controlled the bot nor that he was responsible for the anonymous IP edits is of great concern. However, I do believe there are questions which remain unanswered. | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|Titodutta}} As to why they continued to press on once the bot was initially blocked: I have no idea and I can't come up with a good reason that takes into account the response from WP (blocking/removal) which was obvious and expected in advance of the precipitating actions. With the assumption that the desire was to have more links on Misplaced Pages for a longer time, I see no good reason for acting the way the person controlling the bot did. What it appears they wanted to accomplish (having the bot add links) could have been accomplished, even then, by coming back, taking responsibility, taking some lumps and finishing the approvals process. The links would have been welcomed and in 10x larger quantities which would have stayed for years. Proceeding in the way they did was near certain to result in a much worse outcome with respect to the number and longevity of the links. The fact that this is the case, and that it was easily foreseeable, leads me to wonder about other possible motives rather than the obvious ones (adding links). | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If adding links was the real goal, only someone very short-sighted, or self-oriented in perspective would have continued the way that it happened. Continuing at that point to add links via anonymous IPs, etc. has clear and obvious consequences that should have been able to be seen by the person doing it. Only someone who did not believe the consequences would happen to them, could not or did not see the high probability consequences, or wanted the consequences would have continued. — ] (]) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (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. ... 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">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Its clear the edit filter was not working, nor had it been, for quite some time, but I cannot actually view the history because it is hidden. As a result, it seems that there is far more to this blacklist issue because Kww seems to have hinted to reinstated the blacklist in February in what seems to be an apparent admission of ]. Again... I can't see it, so someone needs to look into this. Kww may not have made a neutral RFC, but there is no question that Misplaced Pages had a clear problem with this bot - but it seems that this issue will need either a community RFC or Arbitration if this is to be resolved. I well understand and appreciate the work done by those who work in this technical area, but this thread continues to bring up more questions than answers... In short, the argument that the attack was/is halted by the blacklist seems to be unsupported. ] (]) 17:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Also, ] shows that the blacklist was not in place by December - long after the supposed close and without further attack. Hobit, the non-admin closer stated, "Per the RFC, the blacklist shouldn't be implemented until most/all of those links are removed. Doing so would, as I understand it, make it nearly impossible to edit these articles. I've not been tracking bot issue, but I think User:Kww is on it." And issues with it were raised by {{ping|Wbm1058}} and {{ping|Lukeno94}}, but again the blacklist post removal was affirmed as that was not the place to fight it. However, I think its fairly clear that the blacklist was not done on schedule and that the closer's request was not followed. Surely, if the "attack" was halted by the blacklist and not the blocks, it would have been apparent. I think we need transparency - can someone please provide the history of that edit filter? ] (]) 17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What edit filter are you talking about? I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but the only edit filter I've seen anyone mention is ], which is already public. You're not mistaking the ] for an ], are you? They're two different things. ] ]] 17:48, 11 May 2014 (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 ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Sorry for the confusion ] is referred to via ] to prevent Archive.is links, but Archive.is was said still not to be on a blacklist in this discussion: ]. According to the RFC, a blacklist was supposed to be made following the removal of the links - this was never done and I can't view the edit filter or see the "blacklisting". Why is filter 559 private anyways? ] (]) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ::::::: Well, several weekends later, ], the initiator of that RfC, has finally filed a ]. ] (]) 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There's a really disappointing comment in that bot request. "and its alias, archive.today, which was put in place to bypass the blacklist" really drives home that archive.is doesn't give a damn about anyone else and will not work with Misplaced Pages. Until that attitude changes, archive.is (and any other alias they come up with) should not be welcomed on Misplaced Pages. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 18:41, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| :::::::::How do you know that the alias was put in place to bypass the blacklist? Did you confirm with the webmaster? Let's not jump to conclusions here: as of present, all archive.is URLs ''redirect'' to archive.today, they might have just had a domain name problem or something. "archive.today" is not an ''alias'', it is the actual domain where the site is hosted, since archive.is is no longer the main domain. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 21:26, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| {{od}}How you know it wasn't? There is zero AGF left related to archive.is. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:41, 11 May 2014 (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> | |||
| : The accusation that Archive.today is to bypass the edit filter - and coincidentally without any attack or mass additions - is disgraceful and naked fearmongering. Its been redirecting for weeks all without a single attack and the edit filter is still by-passable and ineffective in the face of a minimally competent spammer. If there was any threat, it would have been apparent in the last half year. ] (]) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''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) | |||
| ::According to the webmaster himself (see <nowiki>http://blog.archive.today/</nowiki>): ''"ISNIC (the .is domains registry) is being attacked by social hackers so I am about to lose the domain archive.is"''. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 06:12, 12 May 2014 (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. ♠]♠ ] 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;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Moscow Connection}} Your ''comments'' are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, <s>but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.</s><small>It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. </small> ] ] 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with a little ] and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ]@] 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abottom}} | |||
| == Lardlegwarmers block appeal == | |||
| === Alternative === | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| After seeing, and agreeing with Ark25's comment that there should be an archiving tool more closely tied to wikipedia. I created a small hack, http://archive.grok.se - anyone interested in giving it a try? Sample output: http://archive.grok.se/G-3dP4Gc-NQmeZ4JSnCzuVZkdB6pBUSKPS2Xh_lvP_M. One key point is that it should not be possible to alter the contents of an archived link without it being detectable. It's only about 24 hours old at this point, so there's bound to be a few rough edges. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 10:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Brilliant work ], Looks like it is taking snapshot of the webpage and dividing it into pages, even if . The text is unclear as well, most probably for the snapshot image resolution.<br/>Good or bad, a work has been started at least to create an archiving system. <br/><u>I strongly recommend to take this initiative forward, "our Misplaced Pages, our archiving system"</u> Do you mean it can't be used in WP articles now? --<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 11:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement from Lardlegwarmers === | |||
| I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks. | |||
| {{talk reflist}} | |||
| === Statement from Tamzin === | |||
| Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion among uninvolved editors === | |||
| *This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ] ] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ] ] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ] ] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments from involved editors === | |||
| :: Thanks! Instead of just saving the source of web pages as archive.org does, this tool pretty much prints it - hence the pages. So the output is close to what you get if you hit the print button in your browser (some good sites will have print css that help this). This has some good and some bad aspects; the good is that dynamic content is stored without any dependencies and that it, akin to the low resolution images we store under fair use, is created in such a manner that is not likely to replace the market role of the original copyrighted material. It is also why links and text selection doesn't work - it's meant to be a viewer of a snapshot and not a replacement for the original site. The same things also make it not very useful as a proxy or to browse anonymously. Most pages can be somewhat reasonably printed, even though the formatting often leaves something to be desired the contents is nearly always readable. Which I personally think is good enough for a tool such as this. | |||
| * Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Ban appeal from Rathfelder == | |||
| :: A hint: I think the text will be more clear if you open the pdf file (the download link under archival date) in a separate pdf viewer. It will also allow you to select/copy text. PDF.js is still a bit rough, but hopefully it will improve over time. I can always add better navigation, zoom tools and look into the text rendering if people find http://archive.grok.se interesting and start using it :) <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Hi ] I did not try the PDF link, I just checked the webpage and that's what we'll need here. Devanagari script (Devanagari script is a kind of Indian script used for Hindi, Sanskrit etc) is not being displayed properly, if you see my link above, you'll find boxes.<br/>Has WMF given any indication that they'll start their own web page archiving service? I mean WMF's official webpage archiving service? If not, then, a user initiative will be superb.<br/>I am not sure, for a large project you may need finance, I am not much experienced, but you may keep ] in mind. <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Rathfelder}} | |||
| :::* Ah, good of you to spot that! I didn't have very many fonts installed on the machine it runs on. I installed Devanagari fonts - tried with your example, and it appears to render correctly now: http://archive.grok.se/OhhlFC8pbJ_O-OZObkjGz5_4w_oJMBSm17H1yXPt9Vo. The latin glyphs should also be a little bit less ugly. My view is that if and when it turns out to be a large enough project that it needs funding, we'll cross that bridge then. Hopefully it can run on spare cycles and storage for a while. I've gotten help from the WMF to run my other Misplaced Pages related service, http://stats.grok.se, so it's not inconceivable they would be willing to help out with this as well. :) <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 12:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page | |||
| * ] declined by the community | |||
| * ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ] | |||
| Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here: | |||
| I think we should start a project for promoting the idea of Misplaced Pages having it's own archive. It will take some time until it will take off, but we should provide a location for people who want to support the idea. In time, we'll find out how much it costs and other important details, and in the end, one day we'll probably make it happen. — ] (]) 13:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br> | |||
| I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry if I repeated myself in the message above. We need a page like ]. Thanks Henrik for the good job! Such works should be part of the project. — ] (]) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Bulk removals without replacement === | |||
| *'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| See these too: ], ] ] (]) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not just bulk removing, in most cases I'm replacing with either an archive.org or webcite replacement. --] (]) 23:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to ''The Times'', so was not in wikivoice. ] (]) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. ] (]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - ] ] 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding {{xt|articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment}}, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section ''before'' making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. ] (]) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to ban ] from political articles == | |||
| *'''Support'''. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. {{u|Robert McClenon}} says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. ] ] 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If I’m not unmistaken ] was banned by ''ArbCom'', not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic ] actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here ''longer''. ] (]) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. ] ] 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] (]) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. ] (]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a ''de facto'' one. This is a feature, not a bug. ] (]) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Support''' per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. ] (]) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit == | |||
| ] has proven not to be able to be neutral when editing political articles. He has created "Decade of Darkness" twice and "Harper Derangement Syndrome" both of which were basically attack articles against liberals. Since the deletion of decade of darkness he attempted to add it to several articles, despite being told not to. It seems to be clear that he cannot edit political articles without being bias. ] (]) 03:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atopr | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. "Harper Derangement Syndrome" was an eye-opener for me because it was such a blatant, even laughably biased attack article, from an editor who has been around long enough to know better. He knows full well about ]. But I'd say he's demonstrated most recently that he doesn't really care much about it. ] (]) 03:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*My only other comment is that we'd also need to watch out for more ] articles like "Decade of Darkness," which was ostensibly a ''military'' article, even as it was clearly another anti-Liberal Party of Canada attack page, at least when I saw it. ] (]) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. I really can't understand how any user could possibly create such a biased attack article. You don't have to be a long-time user, overly familiar with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, or even particularly knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages decorum. Common sense would seem to indicate that this kind of disruptive trolling would be unwelcome anywhere. It shows an inability to edit political articles and a complete disdain for NPOV. To me, his behavior with respect to the "Decade of Darkness" is secondary, but it shows how determined he is to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. He seems to see nothing disruptive about his behavior and quotes "]" as his justification (see the discussion at the ]). I don't think he's going to change. ] (]) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - Interacting with this user and the many pro-Conservative Party of Canada and anti-Liberal Party of Canada articles he has created and then which had to be deleted, it has become very clear that ] applies. From his edit history this editor is clearly using Misplaced Pages as a ] to promote his own political agenda and in a very blatant and unsophisticated manner as well. His ] has a list of these articles. The Canadian news media has carried stories discussing how the Conservative Party of Canada pays its members to flood forums, news and discussion groups, news site comments and other user-created content websites with pro-party propaganda and the behaviour of this user is consistent with such practices. - ] (]) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' I would like to see your evidence that I'm a paid person of any political party. Otherwise, I suggest you retract your ridiculous statement immediately. ] (]) 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Comment''' - If you actually read what I actually wrote I didn't say you were a paid political contributor. - ] (]) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Seems reasonable to me. That is quite a blatant attack. -] (]) 13:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' While I think it is good to be concise, I also think some evidence should be submitted in the form of diffs/links to support the proposal being sought. ] (]) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Both ] and ] have been deleted, so I could not provide links to them. ] (]) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *''' Oppose ''' I looked at Harper Deragment Syndrome and it doesn't appear to be an attack page. He's writing about what has already been written, in fact, his sources show that it's a neologism covered by more than one source and finally | |||
| At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| His first link is broken to be sure , but it's easily fixed or replaced with . The article itself says what the sources themselves said, no coatrack, no syn nor any or. Now, I wasn't able to find the second article, but the first article appears to be ok and not an attack. ]'' 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I disagree with you. Just because it is sourced, does not mean it's not an attack article. He wrote the article as if it was an actual mental illness. If saying that people who disagree with you are mentally ill is not an attack, then what is? ] (]) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Are you ''shitting'' me? "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." ''isn't'' an attack page? It goes on and on like this, in just that tone. As I said at the Afd, yes, "foo derangement syndrome" is a widely used term. Plug in Bush, or Obama or yes, even Trudeau, and you get Ghits. But this article was written as a pure attack page. It wasn't ''about'' the term, it was using Misplaced Pages as a ] for the term, in it's most extreme POV way. ] (]) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ] I assure you I'm not. However, just so you know, I'm not a Harper hater, nor a supporter, I hadn't heard of him until this report. Howervr, a description of Harper's Derangment appears and he didn't quote it word for word. He paraphrased it. Could that description be worded better ? Sure! However, it's not an attack page. ]'' 19:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I won't badger on this point. IMO it could not be more clearly a ''textbook'' ]. ] (]) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed, I don't know what KV is talking about, clearly an attack page. ] (]) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::When are we going to delete ] and ] as an attack pages, then?--v/r - ]] 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Never? The lead to the second one begins quite neutrally "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe..." This is not at all what we have here. ] (]) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::"...certain Republican Party policies..." All article start out neutral, at least until they get to the "..is.." or "...used to..." And the Santorum page? Misplaced Pages should not be writing articles about all the crap that gets created and spread on election years to smear others.--v/r - ]] 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} I have changed the lead on ] to include "perceived" to clarify that it is opinion. As for ], it's well sourced and simply documents the facts that happen. It is very significant. The article is the first result when you google Santorum. ] (]) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't neccessarily have done that. I'd just look at focusing "War on Women" to the feminist movement and remove the political coatracking. Then I'd delete Santorum altogether. Although I very much doubt it'll get deleted, my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Our policies fully support this.--v/r - ]] 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. It might be useful if an admin could copy these deleted pages to a temporary space so that people can see them. ] (]) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - this is an editor who, alas, seems unable or unwilling to ] regarding the ] that he's been pushing. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - per Bushranger et al. ] (]) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' HDS was a clear attack on the opposition parties and their supporters. ] (]) 01:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block or topic ban''' Misplaced Pages is not a political toy for bashing others. It's bad enough when new editors think it is, but when established editors demonstrate clear abuse of this project while knowing better, they need to be removed from areas where they can not display proper judgement.--v/r - ]] 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' ] seems to be the latest example. The user seems intent to make articles where they can put forward their bias. If you make an article on a term used only by people with your bias, you know that all the "sources" will agree with your bias, and you can pretend that you're just following the sources. This problem can't be dealt with by just AFD'ing each case. Because, the user still gets to put out their bias for as long as the article lasts, and then a new one is created after that. Editing an established article means an instant revert, but that's not possible with new articles, where all the content is bias, and there's no neutral version to revert to. At a minimum, there should be a limit imposed on creating new political articles. --] (]) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. Seems obvious this editor is not cut out to edit in this area. --] (]) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. ] ] 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is ridiculous. I have a Masters degree in political science and I love helping my community however possible. I have only ever written non-partisan articles that are well-researched and supported by ample evidence. At the same time as this individual nominated me for a topic ban, he also nominated several of my articles for deletion, clearly as a form of harassment and attempting to silence the truth. This is obviously a violation of ] and ]. ] (]) 22:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose, qualified'''. If the material is reliably sourced, then the wording may need to be changed to make clear that it is a section or article about ideas that are held by particular individuals. The narrower the segment holding them, the narrower the media and public interest, the less space should be given, but no one should be banned from a topic because they wish to report on unsavory perspectives. Specific sets of American attitudes in the South regarding slavery were abhorrent; no one would ever suggest we should not allow coverage of them. ''If, however, other interested editors provide necessary balance, and Mr Ottawa reverts or wars, then that would change matters.'' Bottom line, if reputable sources are talking about these subject, however ludicrous or offensive we might find them, it deserves mention here, with space allocated on the basis of the importance and magnitude of the discussion. (We ''need'' people to relay—not champion, but relay—reputable reports about Lars von Trier words at Cannes in 2011.) To not allow such perspectives to be voiced, or to slay the messengers (which, at times, will agree with the message, other time not) is a frightening course for Misplaced Pages. ''Rather than'' ever ''put this forward in the affirmative, I would elevate this.'' To topic ban for an editor's for choice of material alone is very troubling. There are things that each of us might wish silenced, for unsavoriness, at WP. Don't do it. Silencing dissent is a pernicious temptation. Le Prof ] (]) 05:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **The main issue was neutrality in the articles, rather than whether they should have been written. One article for example began, "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." In fact, the "disease" is not listed in the APA's '']''. We do not begin the article on Von Trier by saying he is the best director in the world, just because he said so. ] (]) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **What you're proposing is that it's okay for politicians to use Misplaced Pages to gain coverage for whatever kind of foul sewage they spew as long as they can get the media to report on it. No need to worry about facts or truth, we're just going to be a gossip blog from henceforth - a reliably sourced gossip blog. The solution isn't to write "the crap stinks" in neutral words, the solution is to not allow the project to be used to bring attention to mudslinging in the first place. The BS that comes out of election years ins't at all notable. New BS will come out 2 - 4 years later that will get just as much "ooo" and "awe". ].--v/r - ]] 19:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ] ] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **The problem here, Prof, is that the articles are not written as netural analyses of the subjects. They're written as attack-and-slander POV-pushing pieces, and the editor in question continues doing this, repeatedly, despite having been told in no uncertan terms that it's unacceptable. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 03:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠]♠ ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - this is obvious and the editor will get off lightly if this is all that we do. Anyone who can create articles saying the Harper thing is a mental illness is probably shouldn't be here at all, but perhaps this will turn him into an acceptable editor. ] (]) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *'''Support topic ban or site ban'''. I wasn't familiar with any of this, so I read some of the deleted articles, and was appalled. ''Harper Derangement Syndrome'' was a no-holds-barred piece of political much-spreading. The sheer dishonesty of it was staggering, claiming that HDS "is a mental illness" without any attempt to offer any evidence of any medical support for the term, let alone evidence of a clinical consensus in support of it. ''Decade of Darkness'' did it at least start by acknowledging that it "was a term coined", rather than presenting it as a fact, but it used the term as a coatrack for a highly partisan analysis of Canada's defence budget. In some ways this was worse, because it had better chance of sneaking under the radar. Some of the material might have been have usable in a broad article on military spending in Canada, but this was a blatant POV fork.<br />The reason that I support a site ban is that an editor who does sort of thing in one topic area is quite capable of doing it elsewhere, and I see no benefit to the community in simply displacing this activity to other topics. JOttawa16 claims above to have a Masters degree in political science, and if it's true that they are educated to that level, then they will know perfectly well that what they have been doing is unacceptable. This is an editor who is clearly ], and the project should take an unequivocal stand against editors who abuse Misplaced Pages's purpose in this way.<br />However, if there isn't consensus for a full site ban, I will support the proposed topic ban as a lesser but important step. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *User's edit here shows that he cannot understand consensus. Six votes for deletion (two of them suggesting speedy), two weak keeps (one from an IP) and a keep from the creator. And yet, he can't see the clear consensus for deletion. ] (]) 06:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you ] I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such. ]'' 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such.'' | |||
| :::Wrong. Completely wrong. Look at the list of references. The Washington Post, ABC News, Time magazine, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge, Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, ricksantorum.com, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, PC Magazine, MSBNC, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The New York Times, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, .... — ] 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page.'' Yes, we know there are sources. Any politician who opens their mouth will get repeated in reliable sources. That's a weakness and loophole in our policy.--v/r - ]] 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you replying to me? That may be an issue with the media, but Misplaced Pages can't fix the media. — ] 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, I was replying to you, and yes I know. Which is why I don't normally bother arguing the point. But a fix in policy specifically aimed at election years would go a long way toward these 'fully sanctioned attack articles' and the editors who battle in political topics to create and bias them.--v/r - ]] 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What's interesting is that even the media which '''''wants and intends''''' to be neutral (i.e. they aren't running with the story because it supports their intrinsic POV) will repeat the story because it's "out there", and failing to report it would leave them open to charges of bias from the ideological media. The end result is that there's no longer any real barrier that prevents those kinds of stories from running pretty much everywhere. '''''That''''' is a systemic flaw created by the contemporary re-introduction of ideological mass media outlets (something which had almost disappeared), the 24 hour news cycle (which creates the need to fill time) and instanteneous reporting from practically anywhere on earth (which puts a premium on delivering stories and doesn't allow time for them to be checked before airing) - and we suffer from the fallout. ] (]) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sure, there are huge problems with the contemporary mass media, and ] rightly notes some of the big ones.<br />But Misplaced Pages is not just another mass media outlet struggling for market share, nor is it like journalism the first draft of history; it is an encyclopedia, striving to document topics of long-term significance from an NPOV perspective. That means, for example, that we approach a topic from an NPOV perspective, rather than doing what JOttawa16 did, which is to take a soundbite and use it as a coatrack for a POV-fork of an encyclopedic topic. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It reminds me of a programming principle: Garbage in, garbage out. If the media is producing the crap and that is what we use the develop articles, then are we really producing a high quality encyclopedia or a one-stop-shop archival service of crappy news? We have to have some kind of editorial filter, as we do for every other topic (notability guidelines), for election/politics related neologisms and political attack platforms. ] would be a start.--v/r - ]] 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::] covers a lot of this already. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requesting info== | |||
| == Proposed topic ban for ] == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| {{archive top|1=Consensus for a minimum of a topic ban is pretty clear, consensus for an outright ban is not really solid right now so topic ban it is, . <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC) }} | |||
| | result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|LCcritic}} | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files: | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be. | |||
| I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This editor has made clear that they are solely here to promote a fringe theory regarding the theory of relativity, and in over half a year they have made no edits outside of this topic area. {{u|Jason Quinn}}, among several other editors, them to stop using their talk page as a forum to promote their theories. In , LCcritic that they have no intention of stopping voluntarily. | |||
| :As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ] ] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Beyond their user talk page, LCcritic has attempted to promote their views ], in three different in which they argued against the mainstream answers provided, and in an extended discussion at . | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Please Help Me! == | |||
| I suggest that this editor has drawn enough community resources, and propose a one year ] from discussion related to relativity, broadly construed, including their user space. ] (]) 03:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] is an affirmation of ] and stuff like this ] is just wasting community energy. ] (]) 05:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *(ec) Wow! That contribution list is pure unadulterated monomania! The editor is clearly ] to build an encyclopedia, but to push one very particular and specific ] theory. He or she is very clearly the type of editor the loss of which would not damage the project in the least, and would, in fact, improve things a tiny bit, so I would go farther than VQ and suggest that the correct response here is not a topic ban, but an indef block. ] (]) 05:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **So, my first choice is '''Support indef block''', but if other members of the community are less bloodthirsty than I am (they usually are), then I also '''Support topic ban''' if that's want people want. I still feel it's a mistake to take half-measures, but something is better than nothing. ] (]) 05:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from ] but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from ], so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through ] due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing ] (]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I did a little searching (forgive me if I've missed anything) and found that LCcritic has never been taken to ANI, AN, or Arb and has no previous blocks. I checked the talk page and saw someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given. I haven't checked all the edits to articles, but I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template. I didn't check all his edits, although I noticed that a large share were on his talk page and Wiki related, where we normally give editors a lot of leeway. He has 8 article contribs and no edit warring, and he is responsive when asked questions. I'm open minded but not entirely convinced that all other options have been exhausted, as this is the first formal complaint ever filed. ] | ] | ] 11:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would say "devil's advocate" is a misnomer here, {{u|Dennis Brown}}. Everyone deserves due consideration when a ban has been proposed and I appreciate your open mindedness. To address your point, though - I do see a number of Twinkle warnings that are at least peripherally relevant to ] . ] (]) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Bhairava7}} / {{u|Aarav200}}, please contact ca{{@}}wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See ] for details. ] (]) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{xt|someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given.... I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template.}} <br> Um, hooray? We shouldn't be "warning" people about the consequences of past problems, since those past problems aren't their fault; we should just be "telling" them. We have some evidence that canned warnings are less effective at creating good editors than personalized messages. The situation you describe is a cause for rejoicing. ] (]) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing ] (]) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ] (]) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. ] (]) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. ] (]) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ToBeFree|Sdrqaz}},I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. ] (]) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: BTW, we are . ] (]) 12:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That isn't an administrative board. This is the first time someone has asked for sanctions against them formally, and the sanctions they are asking for is an indef block, for all intent and purposes (as topic bans for SPAs have the same result). Before blocking someone, I need to be sure that it really is the '''only''' option. ] | ] | ] 12:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Sorry for the misunderstanding. The diff is intended to show that LCcritic already had a history of spamming this "theory" outside of Misplaced Pages: "Wherever I raise the question" "I am either called a crank (and '''banned from science forums''') or told that challenging mainstream length contraction is inappropriate" (my emphasis) ] (]) 12:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As an admin, I can't really use offwiki information as evidence, as I don't have a way to verify it, and because we hold people responsible only for what they do here, with exceptions only for when those actions affect Misplaced Pages. Just like SPhilbrick, I don't hold a lot of faith that this won't eventually end up badly, but I think this might be just a little premature. If he had a week or two of mentoring on POLICY (without debating the merits of his edits), then it would be an easier sell to just indef block him. IMHO, a topic ban is a bit passive aggressive when dealing with an SPA, and being an SPA isn't against policy. What I don't want to see is someone get indef blocked purely out of convenience, particularly when most of his edits are to his easy to avoid talk page. ] | ] | ] 13:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: "offwiki information" Those are ''LCcritic's words'', not mine or anybody else's. | |||
| :::::: "mentoring" I think I speak pretty much for everyone acquainted with LCcritic when I say that he had more than his fair share of being pointed out relevant policy. OTOH, if that is what it takes to convince you, I'm all for it. | |||
| :::::: "SPA" I have no problem with SPAs, I have a problem with disruptive editors. | |||
| :::::: "easy to avoid talk page" We're not a web host, there is tons of free webspace out there. ] (]) 14:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Seriously, talk page stuff doesn't bother me as long as it is related to articles in some way. Many admin are that way. That said, I do see the problem, and I agree '''something''' needs to be done. I just think we need at least one solid effort to rehabilitate before we banish someone. I'm not sure what that one effort should be, but under no circumstance am I recommending doing nothing. ] | ] | ] 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == BAG nomination == | |||
| *'''Support''' (I am an involved editor, not an admin.) LCcritic keeps returning to arguments which have long since been addressed, instead of countering the points raised against them. It's like talking to a deaf brick. While I don't expect LCcritic to beat any live horses in the future, his style of debate is an argument for an indef block. If LCcritic ever feels like contributing constructively, the burden of proof should be on him/her. I don't want to see another saga like this on a psychological topic. ] (]) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (involved editor) — User had 4 formal warnings for addition of unsourced content in articles: for on ], for on ], for on ], for on ].<br />In addition they had 3 formal warnings for article talk page abuse: for and for at ], for at ].<br />A little overview of (not already mentioned) shopped forums and user talk pages where informal warnings about reliable sources, fringe, consensus, and failing to get the point, have been given: | |||
| ::* . | |||
| ::* . | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ]. Entry was closed by as failed ] by user {{u|Mdann52}}. | |||
| ::* , dismissed as ] by 11 contributors. Finally closed as by {{u|Jayron32}} | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* ]: and | |||
| : - ] (]) 12:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' (largely epr Dennis) I've read enough to predict that this editor will not be a productive contributor, but I see a clean block log. I see some warnings about sources, but I see active engagement on the user talk page. What I do not see is an RfC on the user. My guess is that the editor realizes that the views are not gaining traction, but where is the clear statement that editing style must change or the editor will be banned? I can easily imagine a magazine interview where LCcritic agrees there was some pushback on views, but believes the ban request came from nowhere. We can point to warnings that certain action could lead to a block, but if there is a warning that LCcritic could be banned, I do not see it.--]] 13:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Provisional Oppose'''</s> (uninvolved). I think this is a bit of a dilemma either way. On the one hand, I agree with ] and ], but on the other, I think doing nothing can also be taken to implicitly encourage this for as long as possible, and in the absence of seeing how the user reacts to even a shorter block, an RfC/U has a chance of killing more contributor time than anything. I think the only real option is for an administrator to attempt to engage with the user, and if that fails to produce results, go to the short block stage first. If there is some joy from that route, then RfC/U is the way to go. <s>If nothing changes, then progressive blocks. Need more evidence of dispute resolution to support a topic ban - if that is what is being sought. ] (]) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) <small>I modified my opposition to provisional, pending what he does now having received the DS alert. ] (]) 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)</small></s> | |||
| *:Having reviewed his responses so far ( ) to the alert and warning, and given that I also largely agree with ] below, I'm no longer formally opposing any measure which can possibly emerge from this discussion. For the same reason, I have also struck my comment about progressive/escalating blocks. That said, if he still doesn't get it when he comments next, I continue to prefer a short block of no less than 48 hours and no more than 1 week under the DS regime in the first instance, as it may lead to him disengaging or acting in a fashion which would be sufficient to shortcircuit the need for this. But if after the short block he returns without heeding what he has been told or reconsidering what he is doing here, I would be prepared to formally support a ban. ] (]) 13:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I'm also not an admin but I, too, believe in escalating blocks for editors seen as disruptive to see if a warning or short-duration block can affect their behavior and move them in a more constructive, collaborative direction. This view applies to disputes over content, if this was a conduct dispute (like socking, vandalism, outing, etc.), I can see moving swiftly but not in this case. But then, I believe that editors should only be disciplined for their behavior, not for their beliefs or ideas. As long as an editor abides by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (like ], ] and ]), I don't see disagreement over content as inherently destructive or damaging to the project. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is no content dispute. Everything proposed by LCcritic has been unanimously rejected by every single involved editor, and LCcritic has been repeatedly given the reasons and pointed to applicable policy and guidelines. There has not been a single voice in support of his edits and edit proposals, and all pertaining arguments have concluded months ago. This is about an editor who is simply ]. ] (]) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == I need help from an admin - Urgent == | |||
| * '''Support''' topic ban. I don't see Dennis' argument as compelling – it doesn't matter if he has been at administrative boards before; he clearly has been told sufficiently often, by multiple parties, that what he's doing is disruptive; he's deliberately and systematically refused to take that on board. I also don't see the benefit of first handing out shorter blocks – his sanctions can be lifted any time if and when he changes his mind about why he thinks he's here, but there is nothing that would make me expect he'd do that specifically in, say, one week, or two weeks, or a month. Finally, as for Sphilbrick's point about bans versus warnings, I don't really see the difference. A warning would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else ". A topic ban would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else ". They boil down to the same thing, because there is only one single thing he has ever done on this project, and that is the very thing we want him to stop doing. Finally, I also don't see the benefit of a user RfC. User RfCs are for unclear or disputed situations, where community consensus about how to judge a pattern of behaviour needs to be gauged. There is no such need here. Where things are obvious, RfCs are a waste of time. ] ] 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Meh.''' I completely agree that any attempt to steer this user towards productive engagement, is almost certainly futile. However, there were no formal warnings (until I added a DS alert for] just now). I suggest a short leash: pointed comments on talk, and if he continues advocating this twaddle anywhere else then a block. I am undecided on the merit of topic-banning a ], per some perceptive comments made hereabouts in recent weeks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Misplaced Pages Team, | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I have to admit being very underwhelmed by his attitude and understanding since posting my first reservations. Not sure if it is willful ignorance or what. ] | ] | ] 20:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', per original sense of Dennis Brown. Misplaced Pages is profoundly uncivil too quickly too often too pervasively to too many. --]]] 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: That sounds like you want to discuss it at ]. LCcritic has been given much more than due consideration. ] (]) 20:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban, which, as noted, amounts to a ban, because the user is a single-purpose account. ] (]) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help. | |||
| == Blocked editor's subpage == | |||
| Many thanks, | |||
| Can they edit it? ] (]) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If they're blocked, their own user talkpage is generally the only page they can edit. I've known of clever filtering processes that have been used in the past to allow blocked users to edit other pages, but generally their userpage and subpages are out-of-bounds. ] ]] 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read ] prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I learned something new today. Thank you kindly, Yunshui. :) ] (]) 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the issue? ] (]/]) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] probably needs blocking. ] (]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Done}} ] (]/]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant article: | |||
| :*{{al|An Orange from Jaffa}} | |||
| :OP possibly using multiple accounts: | |||
| :*{{checkUser|Mohamugha1}} | |||
| :*{{checkUser|MohammedAlmughanni}} | |||
| :] (]) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{noping|MohammedAlmughanni}} blocked as a sock. ] (]/]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian == | |||
| == Panel to close CFD on Category:Pseudoscientists == | |||
| {{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. ] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == EncycloDeterminate unblocked == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved that: | |||
| The discussion at ] has now been open for more than the minimum 7 days, and is eligible for closure. | |||
| {{ivmbox|1=Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of {{Userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}}, as it is no longer necessary.}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (] • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|EncycloDeterminate unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == Permission request == | |||
| The debate has been lengthy and involved, with a lot of policies at play. (Disclosure: I have taken a strong stand one side). | |||
| {{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for ] editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you ] (]) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like we’ve got another @] impersonator here. ''If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try…'' ] ] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me that this discussion would benefit from a 3-admin panel of closers, to help give confidence that the closure has been fully-weighed by non-partisans. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ] ] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Seconded. There is no obvious single result, but a consensus may be teased out of the comments, and whatever the result there may well be rucktions. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **The main thing about a discussion such as this is that it shouldn't simply be closed as a count of heads. It does require an analysis of how well-founded the arguments are in policy. --] <small>] • (])</small> 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sure, and there are decent policy argument for each of the three possible outcomes (delete, rename and keep), which are themselves independent of the merits of the template's use in any particular article. Also remember that BLP, one policy cited for delete, does not cover ], for example, who can be legitimately and unambiguously characterised as a pseudoscientist - but is this more or less useful than characterising him as an advocate of pseudoscience? And is that helpful at all in the first place? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :I agree. I also think it is going to be hard for an individual to sort through this alone. ] (]) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ::Would it help if it were procedurally closed now? I'm imagining someone closing it with the rationale of "A group of administrators will be assessing consensus; in the mean time, please don't add anything". It's complex enough now, and it will be a lot more complex if the closers have to account for things added during the closing process. ] (]) 02:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That sounds like a good idea, ]. There are already plenty of comments to sort through. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anyone object if I do it? I participated in it (at least twice, if I remember rightly), but it doesn't seem like a WP:INVOLVED violation, since I'm not attempting to assess consensus one bit, and everybody's equally affected (and nobody really loses) if we end discussion in order to simplify consensus-determination by people who haven't participated. ] (]) 02:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yup, fine with that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Go for it. Regards ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done; sorry for the delay, but I was on the road all day. ] (]) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well done, Nyttend. Discussion had mostly stalled anyway. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Who chooses the panel? ] (]) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed community ban of Marginataen == | |||
| I would like to suggest <s>conscripting</s>volunteering ], an uninvolved admin whose work on the closure of the first Chelsea Manning RM discussion earned a lot of respect. Any more suggestions for admins who might be volunteered? --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=Community ban imposed|1=This clearly fall sunder the {{tqq|except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours}} condition of ]. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * Challenge accepted. I'll be glad to help. ] ] 14:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Marginataen}} | |||
| ** Having briefly reviewed the discussion, I believe that it will take several days to write the close in collaboration with other admins. I don't want to set about suggesting other panel members, to avoid any appearance of bias in the close, but it would be helpful if two more uninvolved admins would step forward fairly quickly. Cheers! ] ] 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a ]), and two days after their last unblock, they were ], as ]. Well they've gone back to ]; their are a good sampler. Despite being ] that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have ] for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request. | |||
| I'm sorry I don't have wikitime to unravel this myself per ] (I'm not particularly category savvy), but when ], ], and ] et. al. are listed in the Category:Pseudoscientists subcategory ] -- which makes them allegedly "Pseudoscientists," right? -- we have a some significant ] issues going on. <small>]</small> 11:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : That's more of a "WTF?" issue. There should probably be separate categories for paranormal investigators and paranormalists. Dean Radin and Joe Nickell might both call themselves paranormal investigators, but they embody two completely different fields of investigation, one seeks to describe and support claims of paranormal activity, the other seeks to test whether a more parsimonious explanation exists. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| They clearly have extreme ] problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which ] Manual of Style violations of ]. Furthermore, in the light of ] (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their ] of the spin-off article ] might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. ] (]) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I will volunteer to help clos ethe discussion, if desired. --] (]) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{ping|ThaddeusB}} Thanks, please ping me when we have a third closer, and please do not hesitate to recruit any admin you trust to be impartial. I have begun to assemble my thoughts at ]. ] ] 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **:Given that your rough count of supporters and opposers doesn't indicate that there is a numerical consensus, perhaps following the model of ] this should be ''''']'''''. Your preliminary analysis might make for good "relister's comments" that could help steer the discussion towards more of a consensus. I just became aware of this and would like the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Please also consider ], ] and ]. There was never a consensus for creation of this category, and it has remained in place over the years only because there was no consensus to delete it either. Seems that the ability to create a category without consensus has given the "creationists" the upper hand here. ] (]) 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the one point of agreement is that there were plenty of comments. I don't think relisting the CFD and soliciting more feedback would clarify matters. The closers are just going to have to weigh the merits of the arguments put forward. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, there have been plenty of comments, but this was held open for just 10 days, and there were still new opinions coming in from editors who had not previously commented just hours before the discussion was shut down. I think that the defenders of this category are more likely to watch it and be prompt in defending it. Note the ID of the first to comment, "QuackGuru" – that ID screams of an editor with an agenda: to label certain people as "quacks". You even said: "{{tq|1=It's like a mini-reunion of regulars at the Fringe noticeboard.}}" Having put that on my watchlist, I see how much chatter goes on at ], although I rarely bother to read it. Keeping this open might allow more time for more disinterested editors to bring some common sense to the matter. But perhaps that's not necessary. I think the preliminary closing analysis is good. ] (]) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well, the regulars at the Fringe noticeboard are united in their attitude regarding pseudoscience and there was a notice about this CfD posted there so I'm not surprised to see all of their names, coming over to CFD and supporting this category. They are openly hostile towards anything they believe is pseudoscience and they see themselves as protecting the integrity of Misplaced Pages. So, this category is useful and valid for them. | |||
| ::::: But I believe a panel of three uninvolved admins can weigh all of the arguments and come to a fair decision with the comments that have been posted. Whichever side of this discussion you are on, it's important to remember that consensus can change over time and every article, category and page can come up for review periodically. ] has been up for deletion before and, if it is retained, it can be proposed for renaming or deletion in the future. There have been categories that have been created, later deleted and then recreated. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is permanent, that's why there will always be a need for these discussions. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{midsize|(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.)}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Block review == | |||
| :'''Support'''. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. ] 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|result=Editor unblocked. Not a spammer. ] (]) 00:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Per proposal. --] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. ♠]♠ ] 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: {{u|Tamborg}}, {{u|Bubfernr}}, and {{u|LatteDK}}. There may be others that I have missed. ] (]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support.''' <s>I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...</s> Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently ] Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen ]: ''"Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates"''. And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to ] ] articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps ]. Hopeless. Block. — ] (]) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' - Gotta play by the rules. ] (]) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. ] (]) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a ] problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. ] (]) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. ] (]) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:TWC DC1 == | |||
| I just blocked {{checkuser|Adikhajuria}} for advertising. Looking closer, it looks like part of a Wikimania thing, but I'm not sure how to handle it. I'm fine with whatever the community decides, but I can't help but to think that the types of edits that this editor is doing is, well, spam. I had started reverted them but stopped after a few and decided that I needed to bring it here instead. Spam or not, this seems very inappropriate. ] | ] | ] 15:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :This is part of an outreach effort for Wikimania. It's not spam - We're looking for people from Wikimedia Projects who are interested in trying to recruit new contributors. ] (]) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::To absolutely remove any doubt: we are not selling anything here. We're offering to create marketing materials FOR projects, for free, so that they can be more visible at Wikimania, which has an outreach component this year. ] (]) 15:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I recommend issuing a warning to ], as their actions appear to be ]. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --] (]) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: More information about creating flyers for WikiProjects for distribution at Wikimania can be found at . <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == G7 request by a blocked account == | |||
| :It is notifications for something for the WMF is doing so I wouldn't call it spam at all. Notifying WikiProjects of something that may be beneficial to them isn't wrong when it is something that is part of a WMF initiative. -] (]) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=G7'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can an admin take a look at ]? It appears to be a "]" request for ]. -- ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — ] ] 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Probably the message should have some kind of method of opting out of future messages. –]] 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sapo.pt == | |||
| ::I've unblocked. This is basically someone notifying Wikiprojects of a potentially useful free resource they can use at Wikimania, which is completely different from spam. I'm not completely sure it is the best way to approach WikiProjects but banning without warning seems a bit heavy-handed! | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}} | |||
| ::I would definitely recommend that Adikhajuria fill in their userpage and mention their connection to Wikimania in the talk page notices though, to avoid confusion. ] (]) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::(And for clarity, I'm also somewhat involved in Wikimania!) ] (]) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They weren't banned, they were blocked as a preventative to what looked like spam. The name gave no indication, they were an SPA, redlink user page, the actual post looked spammy with no opt out and didn't indicate it was "official" in any way. They didn't even know to post at the bottom of the page, and were posting at the top before being told otherwise. No price for the service was given. Link was off enwp etc etc. The combination of all this looked very fishy and similar to some other spammers we have had. Anyway, glad that is cleared up, sorry about the confusion but that is why I brought it here, as I would any block where I have any doubts. ] | ] | ] 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No worries - I'll get him to fill out his profile a bit more and be more verbose in the offer. ] (]) 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I can understand why he looked fishy! And thanks for thinking and posting here. :) ] (]) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == |
== Proxy question == | ||
| I recently enabled the and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., {{redacted}}). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? ] ] 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I blocked {{userlinks|McTimoney}} for one of at least half a dozen possible reasons. This user is trying to whitewash {{la|McTimoney College of Chiropractic}}, a questionable institution that trains "straight" chiropractors in the UK. I suspect that this will not go away. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? ] ] 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. ] (]/]) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK thank you! ] ] 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|EvergreenFir}} Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last ''x'' days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software ''y''", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of {{slink|foundation:Legal:Wikimedia_IP_Information_Tool_Policy#Use_and_disclosure_of_IP_information}} is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. {{small|I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally.}} ] | ] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. ] (]) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Over on ] we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO | |||
| :::::::::Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated ] ] 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that ''IP Info says'' an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated ] ] 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Undeletion + XML export request == | ||
| Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of ], use ], and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Effective May 22nd, category pages will become movable. Although members of the category will still have to be fixed manually, the revision history of the description page can be preserved when renaming categories. ] (]) 03:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. ] ] 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Done}}; ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19 == | |||
| :Interesting. Is there more info on this? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's ], ], and ]. ] (]) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| It would be better if the was restricted to admins; the linked page says it will be available to all users. Currently, categories are moved only through ], and the page which instructs the bots to do this (]) has been full-protected since 2007. Allowing any editor to move the category pages (without a corresponding ability to fix the category entries) risks causing havoc :( --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps someone could take a look at ]? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- ] (]) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] closures == | |||
| :Agree - should be restricted to admins. ] (]) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=I'm just going to close this complaint because there isn't any consensus to take any action on any of the formal or informal proposals. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Keep in mind that all editors can already cut-and-pasmove category pages. All this would do is let them bring the category page's history with it. It wouldn't let them perform mass recategorizations. Because of this, I don't see a need to restrict the right, but if there's consensus to, I will prepare a configuration change request. ] (]) 17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}} | |||
| ::Sure, they ''can'' cut-and-paste, but not many do, because experienced editors know that cut-and-paste is deprecated. Removing that barrier will increase the number of c+p moves of categories. I do think it should be admin-only. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe a separate group for this; it wouldn't be suitable for inexperienced editors, or for all administrators, but could be useful for editors involved in categorisation but not interested in adminship, or who would fail RFA for reasons such as lack of article writing or AFD experience (similarly, "suppressredirect" could be useful for experienced editors involved in reviewing articles for creation or new page patrol). ] (]) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe. We'd need broad consensus for that though. ] (]) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's "assigned to user and sysop by default" - will that be the default here or will it not be assigned to any group here without consensus? ] (]) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It will be assigned to user and sysop here unless we get consensus to change it. (The move right is still needed as well, so you'll need to be autoconfirmed to move categories even though the "user" group has the move-categorypages right.) ] (]) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] mentions a <code>category-move-redirect-override</code> option. Will it be implemented here? - ] 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. It's already set up at ]. ] (]) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excellent, thanks. Would it make sense to add {{tl|R from move}} there? - ] 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think so. We don't do that for category redirects now, and it's not a "real" redirect. ] (]) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No reason not to - maybe display or categorise them differently with a new template "Category redirect from move" or added parameters based on namespace detection. ] (]) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Maybe we could add a move=1 parameter to ]. ] (]) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's probably better, if it will only be used on pages containing that template. ] (]) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 2 sections ] and ](MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions. | |||
| *I agree with BHG: this needs to either be an 'Admins Only' right, or something along the lines of the 'Template Editor' special right - and if it's the latter it needs to be the former until the "broad consensus for that" is achieved. As it is, this is going to allow the sockvandtrolls to willy-nilly move categories about; we shouldn't wait until we see ] renamed to ] to acknowledge that is is otherwise going to happen. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 03:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **How is this any different than what the (autoconfirmed) sockvandtrolls can do to articles, templates, user pages, and anything except categories and files today? Also, the damage would be no worse than if they copied and pasted the description to the "new" name and replaced the old description with a redirect, which they can do anyway. ] (]) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***@] different from what they can do today, because editors know that copy-paste moves are not accepted, so most are reluctant to do it. Adding a move button makes it appear legit.<br />Different from articles in several ways: a) categories pages are rarely edited, so they are on very few watchlists; b) moving an article affects that article, but moving a category page can wreck the navigation system for many articles.<br />Different from templates, because high-visibility templates are routinely protected, whereas categories are not.<br />Please, Jack, there are probably only a dozen or two editors who routinely monitor large swathes of the category system. Bushranger and I are both amongst that number, and we are both alarmed about this. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've submitted ] and ]. ] (]) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks, Jackmcbarn. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} Note that it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change. See the bug for more details. ] (]) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, if anyone wants to play with this to see exactly how it works, it's live now at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ (note that accounts aren't shared between here and there). ] (]) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure the new right should be admin '''''only''''' - instead it would probably make sense to be admins & trusted users. That is, admins should have it by default, and admins should then be able to turn it on for trusted users who ask for it, and take it away upon misuse or complaint. That scheme seems to work OK for other rights. If moving cats is a particularly sensitive area, then the bar for who gets it should be set fairly high. ] (]) 04:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Going to agree with BMK because this opens to more issues and some really difficult headaches if anyone wanted to be malicious. A minimal dose of caution until the ramifications, exploitation and countermeasures are better understood is not a bad thing. ] (]) 04:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Going to disagree here. Moving categories is essentially bypassing ] where renaming categories is discussed. Moving categories should only occur after a CFD discussion has been closed. The reason why this step is essential is, unlike articles, categories do not stand alone, they exist in a hierarchy, with parent categories and child categories. Changing a category name might seem like a good idea but if there is already a category system where the categories are named "X of Y", it doesn't make sense to change one category's name to "Y's X". In a CFD discussion, the context of the proposed renames, mergers and deletions is looked at as no categories exist in isolation (or if they do, they shouldn't be!). | |||
| :: What I'm unclear of is how "moving" is different from "renaming", both of which change the title of a category and retain the edit history. And with a rename, it is not necessary to go and change the category names on all of the category contents. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::When CfD renames a category, they move the description page (today by cut-and-paste), and then use bots to recategorize all members of the old category into the new one. The only difference is that the move (of the description page) will be normal. The bots will still have to do the recategorization to finish the rename. ] (]) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are the bots programmed to handle this configuration? –]] 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Right - but if someone renames a category and neglects to kick off the bots, then hundreds or maybe thousands of articles could have redlinks and/or soft-redirects (which require an extra click) at the bottom of the page.--] (]) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Xeno}} It looks like the bots will need to be updated. I've posted a link to here on their operators' talk pages. {{ping|Obiwankenobi}} The redlinks are a legitimate concern, but the soft-redirect issue could happen anyway, so I'm not as worried about it. ] (]) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Jack, can you give an example of what would happen if I were to move {{cl|Living people}} to {{cl|Dying people}}? What would we see on all of the 600,000 biographies in this category immediately after it was moved? Would there be a redlink, or a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category? Also, what happens if you attempt to rename it to a category name that already exists? I love the idea of saving history of a category instead of copy/paste renames, but I'm just not sure it's a tool random editors should have - making it a permission one could apply for would make more sense.--] (]) 15:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ping|Obiwankenobi}} On the articles, nothing would change at all. It would be a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category (which looks exactly the same from articles). The soft-redirected category would still retain all of its members, so readers would just see a confusing message in place of the description, and everything else would be normal (and a vandal could cause that even without this functionality). If you tried to move a category over an already-existing one, it would fail just like trying to move an article over an already-existing one would. ] (]) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thanks Jack. I think that's problematic - as BHG points out, there are categories that are applied to hundreds or thousands of articles, whereas the category itself may only be watched by a few editors. This provides too much opportunity for large-scale troublesome moves - or even incorrect/undiscussed moves of categories. I believe that bots regularly clean up soft-redirected categories and move articles automatically, correct - that means someone could do an incorrect category move and then a bot would actually move the articles, which editors may ignore since they usually trust bot edits more.--] (]) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::In light of the way the bots (and category move system in general) are currently setup, I think it would be best if a staged approach were used to roll out this new functionality. –]] 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|::::::::::}} The rollout won't break anything. The bots can be updated at any time to use the new move method, and until they are, everything will keep working as it always has. ] (]) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There is one effect of leaving soft redirects that hasn't been mentioned yet - normal users won't be able to revert category moves. If we left a normal redirect then it could be reverted by any autoconfirmed user - providing no-one else edits the page in the meantime - but moves leaving behind a soft redirect will only be revertable by admins. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :(Of course, this won't matter if/when Jackmcbarn's patch goes through, as then only admins will be able move categories anyway.) — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll also agree with BHG that this should be restricted to admins. Once the tool is in place and understood, then there may be a need to review the CFD guidelines to see what if anything needs to be changed. It would also be nice to create a permission list so the bots can do the moves. This should at some point be expanded to additional users. But that would require an approval process. Not even sure where to start on that. ] (]) 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:It would probably be fine to include the permission with <tt>'administrator', 'bot', 'bureaucrat'.</tt> at the outset. And then expand to other userrights as necessary. –]] 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm still concerned about this, even if this tool is restricted to admins or permissions granted to a few experienced editors. Right now, we have two processes, a) ] and b) ]. If ANYONE objects to a speedy rename, the editor proposing the rename is directed to file a CFD proposal. Let's say, it's a category call "U.S. Interstate Highways in Virginia". If it goes to a CFD discussion, the creator of the category is notified, the relevant WikiProject is notified, there are notices sorted to other, interested WikiProjects so they can all participate in the discussion over whether the rename is a good idea. This might be a cumbersome process, but it allows ordinary editors who are experienced in editing in the category area to weigh in with their opinions. Some of these discussions get heated (like the one concerning ]) and the result is "no consensus". <br> | |||
| The idea that any admin could bypass this discussion process and move any category they choose, is very disruptive to the system that exists. As BHG states, there are a small number of editors who focus on categories and the chances that these moves would be seen by others is very small so there would be, in effect, no oversight. This isn't meant to be a judgment of administrators, just that the structure of categories on Misplaced Pages is quite different from other areas (like main space, talk pages, user pages, Wikipages, FAs, etc.). Editors have received blocks because of their lack of competency in creating or editing categories because bad edits to a category have a potentially greater impact than an edit to an article.<br> | |||
| The only way I can see this tool being effectively used is '''after''' the outcome of a CFD, if the decision is to rename, a move can be done instead. Otherwise, editors can simply ask an admin or editor with the permission to make the move and skip over the discussion part. The admin may be uninvolved but it is very likely that the editor requesting the move is involved and there could be even more editors who would contest the move.<br> | |||
| I really understand that this tool was created to make editors/admins lives easier, not more complicated, but I see an uptick in activity at ] unless this tool is thoughtfully and carefully rolled out. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Alternate userright proposal''' I propose renaming "templateeditor" into "trusted maintainer" and merge this userright into that bundle. Could also merge reviewer and account creator into it as well, just throwing the options out there. A trusted maintainer would be a perfect userright for gnoming work.--v/r - ]] 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think if it was this simple for "trusted maintainer" to move a category, they will just do so without checking to see how their move impacts related categories. I think when an editor has a right, they might be cautious using it at first, but soon are likely to trust their instinct or judgment instead of actually checking to see if the move makes sense from the category hierarchical structure that exists for that subject. It's crucial not to consider a category in isolation from other categories, they are part of a system. But I've had my say and will let others weigh in. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't like the idea of bundling, personally, especially with the userrights that don't have much process attached for requesting them. We lose any ability to differentiate between them, as far as requirements go; someone who just wants to be able to review pending changes to articles isn't going to necessarily have the skills to be a template editor, but because we've (hypothetically) bundled them, we can't just give one without the other, and so we have to deny them for no ''real'' reason.<p>As far as the actual catmover right itself goes, I don't really see any reason to restrict it; while it's certainly true that maliciously moving a cat description page can affect many articles, it will only affect them by proxy (i.e. the cleanup is still limited to just that one cat description page; you don't need to go through and fix it for each of those thousands of articles), and it only affects them in an extremely minor way; most likely, no readers would even notice. On the whole, I don't think the potential for damage is particularly higher than pagemover, which might only affect one article, but will do it in a much more visible way (and there are articles that are just as unwatched as categories, of course). ] ]] 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think there's also the question of norms. Pages can be moved by anyone in most cases, but it would be rather daft to move ] to ] unless you have a death wish - a norm, and indeed a set of community agreed sanctions, has made individual editors moving such pages verboten. We could do the same with category moves - unless the category was created by yourself, or the move is to correct a typographical error, no matter what your role you should not move it, but rather seek consensus for the move at CFD or speedy CFD. A log of category moves could be reviewed to ensure that people weren't abusing this. Thus, in spite of what userrights we attach, we may also create a community norm that says, in general, categories should only rarely be moved without discussion - which would be a more restrictive rule than that which covers articles currently.--] (]) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I think that moving category pages will be useful for multiple reasons – keeping the category history visible, and being able to trace the new name more easily given the old one – but IMHO it should be restricted to admins. I can't think of any gain from making it available to others. (Writing as an editor who became an admin mainly to help with closing CFDs.) – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:So yet another user "right" that administrators want to keep to themselves? Soon it will only be admins who are allowed to edit anything. ] ] 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Ping|Eric Corbett}} No, Eric, it's a new tools which is not initially being rolled out to non-admins. No editor is losing any ability to do anything they can do now. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{edit conflict}} Not yet, no. But my fundamental objection is to the accretion of user rights to admins without any assessment of whether they have any idea of how to edit templates, for instance. I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about this self-evident truth here however, in the camp of the enemy. ] ] 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::No, users currently do not have this right. There is already a process to move categories and that is in place for several reasons. So the comments here simply are saying we need to install this feature in a way that supports the existing guidelines. If and when that process is changed, then the rights could be extended. ] (]) 17:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Kind of misses the point. While WMF is trying ] -- as evidenced by the fact by default the right goes to users -- the admin community is trying to decide a priori, without any evidence, that it should be restricted. Meanwhile, in the thread above I pointed out about 36 hours ago that our existing categorization of Pseudoscientists / Paranormal investigators -> ] is a ], but admins here seem more interesting in haggling about this, and the Cfd and the blah blah blah whatever, than ''actually fixing the encyclopedia.'' (I've attempted to do so at ]). <small>]</small> 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Incidentally, ''this'' is why non-admins need to be on ] -- there's zero justification for admins deciding something like without getting input from the rest of the community. <small>]</small> 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' a wider group for this right. The best venue for this would have been the ], but seeing as the discussion is already underway there is no point moving it now. I can see two camps forming, one side would like to restrict this to a small number of trusted users, the other to keep it open to a wider group. Personally I think it is a significant new right and it will see many simmering disputes spill over, particularly real world issues like the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, the current Russia-Ukraine problems etc. If we open this new right to a wide group of editors, it will cause chaos because people will engage in POVish edit wars just like they do with article names and content. However, it isn't beneficial to Misplaced Pages if the right is resticted to just admins, because then it will be no different to the existing mechanism at ]/] i.e. you propose a rename and if approved it gets done by an admin/bot. The above idea of merging it into template editors and renaming that group has some merit but it begs the question of "why limit it to just that group?". I think the most beneficial route will be to add it to the widest possible group of trusted users i.e. admins, autopatrolled, file mover, reviewer, rollback and template editor groups. That would help build more confidence in each others abilities compared to the snarl-match taking place here. Cheers. '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::While it could be a useful tool for users other than admins to have, I am opposed to adding the right to groups like Autopatrolled, file mover etc. as {{U|Green Giant}} suggested. Rollbackers (such as myself) often will have no clue about category maintenance, and it should neither be assigned to thousands of users who could misuse it (in good or bad faith) nor should category knowledge be a requirement to attain rollback. I would support a user group such as ''category mover'', to be assigned like file mover to users experienced in category maintenance who can demonstrate their need for the tool by having demonstrated understanding and activity at ]. ] (]) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It seems like my words of caution aren't having an impact on the discussion. So, my final comment is a straight-forward request:If you make this tool available, whether just to admins or to a wider group, please maintain a log of category moves so that there can be some record. Right now, we have CFD that acts as an archive one can refer to but if any admin can move a category, without providing any reason at all, there should at least be a log of these moves so that the community is aware of these changes. As BHG has stated, few editors have category pages on their Watchlist, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist and it is likely that category moves will go unnoticed if there isn't a log recording them. It should also record the name of the editor making the move so that any questions can be directed to them. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :They will be logged. See . ] (]) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Category moves: this is looking bad === | |||
| A reply above by {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} says "". The bug link is ]. | |||
| :I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. ] (]/]) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So it seems that what is ''now'' happening is that the new feature will be rolled out on 22 May, with no restrictions on its use. For all the reasons set out above, that is very bad news, because this new tool could be used to create serious damage to the category system, which could be enormously time-consuming to repair. A moved article affects one article; but a moved category can affect hundreds of articles. If an editor moves ] to ], a soft redirect will be left behind, and the bots will then recategorise all the articles. This is wide open to exploitation, and it the vulnerability it causes should be fully assessed before such wide deployment. | |||
| ::Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? ] (]) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. ] (]/]) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I decline your request to withdraw. ] makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. ] (]) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. ] (]/]) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. ] (]) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So much for cooperation... <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. ] (]/]) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::May be I should have more specifically mentioned ] (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. ] (]/]) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. ] (]) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. ] (]) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of ] . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said ] to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". ] (]/]) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. ] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{outdent|1}} Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. ] (]/]) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. ] (]) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? ] (]) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @] can you explain? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. ] (]) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per ]. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . ''Many editors'' have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. ''In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system,'' but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. ] ] 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. ] (]) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building. | |||
| ::::::::*Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468. | |||
| ::::::::*Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468 | |||
| ::::::::*Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629 | |||
| ::::::::*Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022 | |||
| ::::::::] (]) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::To me, characterizing as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. ] (]) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. ] (]) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So you're aware, per {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Retiring#Pending_sanctions}}, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have ''claimed to have retired previously'', please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with ], especially as it related to ]. ] ] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. ] (]) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Consensus disagrees: ] ] (]) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. ] (]) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with ''you'', not the culture. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. ] (]) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Note that I said "experienced", not "older". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to ] to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. ] (]) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing ]. You might find it helpful. ] ] 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? ] (]) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They tried that stunt ]. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a <s>second</s> <s>third </s> n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? ] ] 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. ] ] 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. ] (]) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards. | |||
| :We can enforce guidelines about civility, ], but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged. | |||
| ::My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits. | |||
| ::Timeline of how this ended up here: | |||
| ::*Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people | |||
| ::*Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page. | |||
| ::*Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47. | |||
| ::*Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied. | |||
| ::I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". ] | |||
| ::An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022. | |||
| ::I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 | |||
| ::I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 ] ] | |||
| ::I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. ] (]) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard <u>not</u> to be {{tq|uncivil}}. | |||
| :::<small>But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person.</small> <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. ] (]) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. ] (]) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here ''or'' you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those {{tq|sanctions}} may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as ] as of now, can be enforced to {{tq|encourage a more productive, congenial editing style}}. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually ] and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware ]); <small>(struggles to think of a closing sentence)</small> farewell, Legend. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? ] (]) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding {{tq|there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behavior}} is almost always because ''nobody else'' sees how you're being treated as uncivil, even after you've presented your best evidence of such claims. TYour perceptions of other people is causing you undue stress that is of your own doing. However, if this is truly causing a {{tq|negative impact}} on you, I have to ask WHY are you still coming back here? If anyone feels stressed by contributing to a volunteer project, they should simply take a Wikibreak, and not just say it, but literally turn off all notifications, logout, and set some sort of calendar reminder for some point in the future before you even look at a Misplaced Pages page. This should be your happy place, not a stress inducer. ] ] 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I mean I agree people were being rude at BLPN and people on wiki are often needlessly antagonistic. The issue is that because that's the case, what would get someone fired in a professional environment is treated as not a big deal here. ] (]/]) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Legend of 14}} recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. ] (]) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal: ] block for Legend of 14=== | |||
| I think it's a mistake to read the discussion above as no consensus for restricting this to admins only ... but there is also no consensus to roll this out without a restriction in place. | |||
| Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' As proposer. ] (]) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited ] content from ] I listened. ] (]) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There are only 9 days until the planned rollout, which is too soon for an RFC to conclude. So it seems that the technical people are just going to impose this new tool as a fait accompli, without giving the community time to assess whether it wants it, and whether access to it should be restricted. Is that correct? | |||
| *'''Support''' a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear ] situation. ] ] 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''If this is still going on support''' I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. ] (]) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's not. ] (]) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, {{U|Legend of 14}}, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. ] ] 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was simply pointing out the ''pre-redacted state'' if you happened to only read the current talk page, they removed over 8k bytes from their talk page, which further adds context and shows conflict skills. I agree that they sound "younger" especially by their approach and rejection to experience, but their actual age has little to do with their ability to contribute, however, emotional maturity is something that does weigh into the ability to manage conflict. ] ] 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' This is a huge overreaction. Can an involved admin please close this thread so everyone can get on with editing instead of fanning the flames of this inconsequential dispute? ] (]/]) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? == | |||
| I it ''is'' correct, then the techies are about to impose a huge vulnerability, despite the warnings :( --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What's to stop a vandal today from creating ] with some random text, and replacing the contents of ] with {{tlp|Category redirect|Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys}}? That would also cause the bots to miscategorize everything. ] (]) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, note that {{u|Parent5446}} questioned including the option to restrict this functionality at all ("]") ] (]) 18:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree fully with BHG, this potentially powerful tool should be restricted to admins only. ]] 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I agree with Jack: the potential destructive power of this tool doesn't actually lie in any function of the tool itself; it lies in the naivety of the bots that handle category redirects. restricting the use of the tool would be treating the symptom, not the cause, and as a general principle, we shouldn't be restricting permissions any more than is necessary. Perhaps we should think about a better way for the bots to work, instead. ] ]] 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Whatever the solution(s), they should be discussed '''''before''''' the tool is deployed. What we face now is its imposition before the community has fully assessed its impact, despite a significant number of experienced editors expressing concerns. That's appalling. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, this definitely required more, detailed discussion before being thrust upon us. ]] 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| For example, ]. In theory I think this could be deleted via ] for violating ]. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day? | |||
| {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} notes the bugzilla post ("]") That has been answered repeatedly in this thread, but it seems that some editors prefer to keep this as a technical discussion on bugzilla, rather than joining in the community discussion here. | |||
| Hmm, actually this is an article about a ] member, not a ] member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * No, it doesn't. If it ''was'' (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles ''should'' be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. ] 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That wasn't discussion-forking. That was an old post (posted February 3rd), while I was writing the code for the functionality. ] (]) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:It might fall under ]. ] (]/]) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for clarifying that, Jack. But we still need this functionality to held back until there is a consensus on how to deploy it. Please can you or someone else with access to bugzilla make that request? --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per ] ¶ A2, {{tqq|Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The sysadmins definitely won't go for that. The best thing that there's chance of consensus of in time is to make it admin-only, but even that doesn't look likely. ] (]) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As long as the article is acceptable, this is what ] is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jack, I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean no chance that the sysadmins will agree to holding it back? --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Given that they were specifically when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of ] at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. ] ] 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes. ] (]) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::In ''that'' case, it should probably be nuked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No need to rush''' Jack, I think you make a fair point - it is possible that someone could replicate the move functionality through a copy/paste + creation of a redirect, and then the bots will stupidly comply and categorize everyone as a cheese-eating surrender monkey. However, there is a certain element of security-through-obscurity here - most rookie spammers may not know about the full mechanics of a successful category move, whereas now it will become accessible in one click. As a developer, I'm sure you know the difference between one click and three in an interface can be '''massive'''. Nothing prevents people from doing copy/paste moves in article space, but we still restrict page moves for some users and even have the ability to lock page moves, with good reason - as such moves can be disruptive. More importantly, you have to understand the context of categories - which those of us who work in this space are well familiar with - if category moves were permitted by anyone, or even by people who had demonstrated X or Y, I'm still not convinced they should be using such powers - indeed if someone did this today, and tried to rename a category from {{cl|Bill Clinton}} to {{cl|William Jefferson Clinton}} using the redirect trick, it would be rejected and reverted and that person would be told to go to CFD. We have only one case right now where a regular editor can determine the name of a category, and that is at creation time - once that category is created, any changes need to be discussed. It's a bit burdensome, but it also avoids a lot of trouble - we already have a great difficulty in managing the flood of new categories - if we also had to be worried that users were changing existing category names willy nilly in the same way they move articles around - especially given that so few people watch categories - that could cause potential chaos and massive inconsistency that may only be discovered years after the fact. At CFD we regularly come across categories that are so brain dead it is painful, and sometimes these have been laying around for years before anyone noticed them. I think if this is rolled out, even just to admins, the admins should NOT use this tool unless there is an obvious typo, or unless there is consensus at a discussion somewhere. As a different example, Brownhairedgirl as admin has the right to delete categories right now, she could go and ice {{cl|Living people}} if she felt up to it, but she *won't*, she won't even delete obviously bad categories (unless they are blatant spam or violating of BLP), instead she will bring them to discussion and let the community decide. It's just the way CFD works, and by putting this tool in the hands of everyone, you are bypassing the whole CFD process. There's a certain stability that comes with categories and a need for consistency; knowing that a given tree won't be gutted or destroyed or renamed without some oversight and more than one pair of eyes is key. Categorization is tricky and category names are quite different beasts than article names, so we shouldn't treat them the same. I'm saying this as a user, not an admin, and while I think it's reasonable to consider adding permissions for certain non-admins to do such moves, there need to be strong norms around when any such moves can be performed, and I can think of very few cases where even an admin should move a category without discussion (unlike article titles, which can be moved much more freely). If it needs to roll out right away, fine, but restrict it to admins, and let the community discuss greater permissions and attendant norms in the meantime.--] (]) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ] (]) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree with all that Obi has written. The only situation in which I as an admin move a category without discussion is when it is one that I have newly created, per ]. As an admin, I would use this new tool in only three situations: 1) to implement a speedy move of a categ I had newly created; 2) to implement a speedy move after unopposed listing at ], 3) to implement the result of a full ] discussion. In practice, I would very rarely do either of the 2 or 3, because in nearly all cases it is much easier an to let the bot do the work; the bot also makes fewer mistakes and logs its actions consistently.<br />So if it is used properly, this new tool will overwhelmingly be used by the bots. That raises the option of making it a bot-only right. I would be quite happy with that, it might allay some concerns about accretion of admin powers. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. ] (]) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Teahouse == | |||
| *'''Delete''' ASAP and don't look back. Re: "''does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine''" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. ] (]) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| *'''Delete''' and block {{np|BasselHarfouch}} site-wide for continued violations. --] (]) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There is some sort of problem at ] that is hiding recent threads. Can someone with better programming skills than mine (in other words, almost anyone) try to fix it? Thanks. ] ] 05:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It is fixed. Thanks! ] ] 06:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Deleted. And I also deleted ] for the same reason. I'll let another admin block if it is warranted. ] ] 07:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD needs closing == | |||
| == Archive bots == | |||
| Due to an inappropriate re-listing, and then a mistake in the un-re-listing, the is still open. Could someone take a look and close? ] (]) 06:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :Done, by TParis. ] (]) 10:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | result = This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. ] (]/]) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Sock-plagued Afd needing close == | |||
| :{{u|TonyTheTiger}}. Maybe you are thinking of ]? –] <small>(])</small> 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. == | |||
| ] has been open for eght days now, with only delete !votes left after a whole farm full of confirmed socks have been struck. So could we please have an uninvolved admin close the AfD and delete and '''salt''' (see !votes and comment on the AfD) the article? He has been using WP as free advertising/promotion space long enough. Thanks. ] ] 12:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per ] (and, indeed, ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Indeed. One of the sockpuppets in the debacle that they were using Misplaced Pages as free advertising or some sort of means to legitimize the subject to the people of Lagos in .—] (]) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As observed , Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated.<span id="Masem:1737504211892:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::Yes, it seems like promoting Ambode on WP is part of the build-up for his election campaign, which is one of the reasons I want the purely promotional article off the air. ] ] 13:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}} by the panda. Thanks. ] ] 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against.<span id="Masem:1737506377400:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::::If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. ] (]) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations}} Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. ] (]/]) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ] for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. ] ] 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == |
== Legal threat == | ||
| {{atop | |||
| * Please, is there any chance of help with about 65 bird species name decapitalization move requests which have been dumped in ]? ] (]) 05:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Some of these requests have been obeyed by someone else but not deleted by him from the list. ] (]) 05:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| * Now all {{done}} and deleted by someone. ] (]) 05:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on ]. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. ] (]) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Problems with a user. == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editor == | |||
| I am having some problems with ] and would like some help calming the issue down. I was editing on ] and found this users edits and reverts of my edits to be unreasonable and rude. Eventually this user became abusive in their language and refuses to apologize: . Normally I would just ignore this type of thing but I am planning to do a lot of editing on this particular page in the near future and, in my opinion, this editor is attempting to claim ownership of this page. So, I simply want to calm this situation down and know that I can edit on this page without bruising this users ego and causing a headache for myself.--] (]) 20:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :Editor was working on '']'' with no <nowiki>{{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}}</nowiki> tag on it. I jumped in to fix the mistakes, and was told (in an edit summary) "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear". I don't take that kind of condescending bullshit from anyone, but I continued editing the article until I got another condescending note on my talk page: "Does somebody need a wikihug". Posted the editor's talk page, told the editor to learn how to use the proper tags, called them a "condecending asshole" and banned them from my talk page. Minutes later the editor posted to my talk page, demanding an apology. There will be no apology. Next thing I know is this (which should be on AN/I and not here, BTW).<p>I don't "own" '']'', I don't even have much invested in it. I fixed the mistakes the editor made, added an English translation to the French quotation, cleaned up the refs and some of the formatting, and that's it. The claim that I want to "own" it is bullshit, as is the condescension I don't need and don't deserve.<p>This is my comment on this matter, and there will be no other. Don't post on my talk page about it unless you're an admin giving me a formal warning or block, because I'm not interested in your opinion. ] (]) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC | |||
| | result = ]. Level 2 warning issued. ] (]/]) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: When did it become a policy requirement that we don't edit articles without first tagging them as "in use"? | |||
| }} | |||
| :: We don't do this, or need to. because there is generally some recognition that overlaps happen, occasionally the forethought to see that sizable edits might not stop in moments after the last one that's visible, and (most importantly) the recognition that if you do overlap with another editor in action, then an appropriate action is ''to back off'' and let them get on with it. This isn't about ownership, it's about basic politeness on a shared project. ] (]) 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nevertheless, it's also not a requirement to wait until someone is done to start editing, especially if one is not actually reverting them. BMK's edits were not commented, which isn't awesome, but it's not against any rules, and Deoliveirafan's weren't, either. To respond to someone else editing the same article with an edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear" , which really is condescending, and follow it up with --the first two actual communications of any type between the two--is just not cool, and while BMK overreacted, he overreacted to actual provocation. So yeah, I'm not sure either editor is better than the other in this situation; both could've handled things much, much better. ] ]] 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be fair I was also provoked into being condescending (reverting perfectly acceptable edits within minutes does not seem reasonable to me), nevertheless will acknowledge that I was indeed being condescending (in response to rudeness) and will be the bigger user and apologize to Beyond my Ken here and now. However to be condescending is to be humorous, and so I will not apologize for the act of combating hostility with humor. It would be a sad day for the world if that became outlawed. I admit that I do not know the official rules (if there are any), but I would request that in the future if I or any user are clearly working on a specific page and have several edits within minutes of each other, it would be courteous to not immediately revert them, especially since the only justification seems to be "I don't like". I assure you that I have already taken pages and pages of handwritten notes for this page (that's just how I edit) and would like to see it improved. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that that is what actually matters.--] (]) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Um, ok now that I've actually read some other posts by both Beyond my Ken AND Writ Keeper, it seems I'm being dragged into some completely different issues that have nothing at all to do with me and that I am not at all the problem here. Beyond My Ken, your language was unacceptable, please apologize right now. Writ Keeper, if you clearly have a conflict of interest please do not comment.--] (]) 23:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wouldn't consider myself to have a conflict of interest whith respect to BMK. I've interacted with BMK a lot, but always in an administrative role (which isn't usually thought to create a COI, as far as ] is concerned), and not always in the way BMK would've liked. There are some other issues that got dragged into the conversation on my talk page, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't think it has affected anything I've said here. Certainly I need to avoid even the ''appearance'' of being involved, and so I certainly wouldn't act as an admin in this situation, but I don't think there's anything that would prevent me from simply commenting. Nevertheless, to avoid all doubt, I won't comment further about this issue. ] ]] 23:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|5}} Without commenting on the validity of any of the edits made to the actual article, I think Writ Keeper's initial appraisal of the system is spot-on. Deo, you have to remember that humor doesn't translate well without visual and tone cues (basically, doesn't translate well on the internet). I ripped this quote, without associated links, from ]: {{xt|Humor tends to be very subjective. One should remain aware that what one finds hilarious, another may be offended by. The use of humor does not override such core policies as Civility and No Personal Attacks.}} Learn this lesson: humor rarely works in response to online arguments. There will always be someone who takes your words at face value, or worse. And besides, I don't know why you think condescension is funny in the first place, from wiktionary ] is awfully close to ], which is defined as "offensively condescending"...well, thanks, wiktionary, that helped a lot...anyways, I'd say a vast majority of people would consider a "condescending" comment insulting, not funny. In any case, good on you for apologizing, though hopefully that was a ''sincere'' apology. I personally think BMK should offer up an equally sincere apology, as what they did ''was'' a severe and rather uncivil overreaction, but I don't know if that'll ever get across to that one. Hope it all ends well, ] (]) 02:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (Former ] - oh, and, just so you know, I don't think I've had any interaction with either user before, either on the account or IPs) | |||
| ] has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ]== | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| Some effort to reduce the backlog and hopefully get most of these to an 'acceptable' standard for Commons would be appreciated.] (]) 23:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not clear to me what is wanted for the images in this category. Some of them already have high resolution and reasonable or good quality. Presumably you can use help from non-admins in technical work or finding better source images. Is there some project page or similar that provides additional information? --] (]) 18:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like Amble, I'm confused what you would like others to do. How are we to get them to an "acceptable" standard for Commons, for example? ] (]) 03:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale == | |||
| == User:24.185.206.250 == | |||
| Crouch, Swale was for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a ]. In ] they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In ], Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ] and after questioning on his talk page basically ] he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. {{u|ToBeFree}} correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, ] (]) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This IP has been going around to various New Jersey road articles and making poor formatting changes and reducing the accuracy of mileposts. The NJDOT SLDs give the mileposts out to 2 decimal places but the IP changes them to one decimal place. For example . The IP has been warned but continues to make the edits. <span style="background:#00001A; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 01:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. There are too many missing dots here. {{U|Crouch, Swale}}'s editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as: | |||
| :For the record ] has similar edits. <span style="background:#00001A; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 01:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::one account restriction | |||
| ::topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions | |||
| ::prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace) | |||
| ::prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace). | |||
| :That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? ] (]) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment:''' I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022. | |||
| ::They then went to ] with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail). | |||
| ::Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient. | |||
| ::I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way. | |||
| :: Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. ] (]) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Candidates for speedy deletion == | |||
| * I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --] (]) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. There is currently a backlog at the ]. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits. | |||
| : I've actionned a whackload of them one way or another. What's left is primarily AFC G13's, with a mere handful of others <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::G13's what? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support the site ban''' that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe the usage was in the sense of "]". Once again, just the Panda being controversial and trying to push the envelope. I <s>suggest</s> ''insist upon'' desysopping. Rgrds. --] (]) 23:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Please note that your comment is highly inappropriate.--] (]) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --] (]) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: ]: When I finished going through what was then all of the entries in the CSD category, I had pretty much taken care of all of them ''except'' the ones that had been nominated under ] - those that were abandoned Articles for Creation. There were about 25 of them, and were easy-peasy for any admin to handle as they were uncontroversial. In other words, I handled most of the tough ones, leaving the easy ones for someone else <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. ] (]) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. ] ] 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Farah Pahlavi == | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|1=Content dispute; ] is thataway →. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 13:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's ''hard'' to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --] (]) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, ] say Azerbaijani is somebody, who was born and raised in Azerbaijan means (] or ]) and his/her first language is turkish. because ] was born in ], He says so she isnot Azerbaijani people. In the event that his father is Azerbaijani ethnicity<ref name="books.google.com">Shakibi, Zhand. . I.B.Tauris, 2007. ISBN 1-84511-292-X; p. 90</ref><ref name="Taheri, Amir 1991. p. 160">Taheri, Amir. ''The Unknown Life of the Shah''. Hutchinson, 1991. ISBN 0-09-174860-7; p. 160</ref> | |||
| *:By "oppose", are you opposing the site ban or the regular block? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 20:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| and Tehran have 25%<ref>{{cite web|url=http://looklex.com/e.o/iran.peoples.htm |title=Iran Peoples |publisher=] |date= |accessdate=2013-07-27}}</ref> to 1/3 Azerbaijani people–<ref name="Library of Congress Iran">"Chapter 2 - The Society and Its Environment: People and Languages: Turkic-speaking Groups: Azarbaijanis" in ''A Country Study: Iran'' Library of Congress Country Studies, , last accessed 19 November 2008</ref><ref name="Country Study Giude-Azerbaijanis">{{cite news|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=0KOSUrLPC6IC&pg=PA152&dq=majority+of+the+population+of+East+Azarbaijan+and+a+majority+of+West+Azarbaijan.#v=onepage&q=majority%20of%20the%20population%20of%20East%20Azarbaijan%20and%20a%20majority%20of%20West%20Azarbaijan.&f=false |title=Country Study Giude-Azerbaijanis |publisher=STRATEGIC INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENTS-USA |date= |accessdate=13 August 2013}}</ref> So Azerbaijanis in Tehran due to being born in Tehran, arenot Azeris? | |||
| :::The site-ban, of course. The regular block isn't even being reviewed here, I think - obviously if someone overtly threatens to do those sorts of things and doesn't back down they have to be blocked. --] (]) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Plz see Revision history ] and ]--] (]) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: Oh, I think I misread the title of this section—I thought "assuming" was "assessing". ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <references /> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not the correct place to raise the dispute. First, try discussing the matter on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, try another venue like ]. This board does not solve your disputes for you. --]''''']''''' 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. ] (]) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| *::I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. ] covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is not above my pay grade to use common sense. But do what you think you need to do. ] (]) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This whole situation is just weird. I was reading ] for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. ] (]) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I was someone who came back to Misplaced Pages after being blocked for an extensive period of time. If I was in a situation where I didn’t want to edit anymore, requesting a site ban for myself would be the wrong way to do so. There are better ways to handle these things rather than this. Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with taking a break from Misplaced Pages if you feel it is getting in the way of your life. It can be stressful for editors to tell you things you don’t necessarily want to hear, but there are more important things in life than Misplaced Pages which are in the physical world. I’ve been one of those people. You can also request a self-block on yourself rather than doing every naughty thing you can do to get yourself blocked. Those blocks are harder to get yourself back into the community if you feel you need to. I’d rather do everything right on Misplaced Pages rather than do a bunch of wrong things. In a nutshell, that’s basically how I feel. ] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Meh''' They can't appeal on their talk page, and I can't imagine the small group of admins that does the heavy lifting at ] unblocking them. The only other avenue of appeal is the committee, which seems equally unlikely, so I'm not really seeing much risk here. ] ] 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I just hope they are okay. I think the site ban was completely justified, but something seems off here, and if they want to return, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the normal procedures. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I have met Crouch at the RFD, and demonstrate that he can be a productive user. They asked for a block (or even ban) was probably due to real-life matter. At this stage, an indefinite block seems enough. --] (]) 09:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== WMF research on admins == | ||
| There's a 70 page final report over at ]. Apparently it will be part of something called the ] in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. ] ] 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is legal per ]? It looks like a direct translation of a copyrighted text. | |||
| :Hello, ], I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at ]). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. ] ] 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. ] (]) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we lean older or younger? ] ] 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Admins average older than editors and readers. ] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. ] (]) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi @], hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also ] if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit. | |||
| ::On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I like this line {{tq|1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.}} That was my experience! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:], you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. ] (]) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins <small>(although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax ''formal'' requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements)</small>. However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). ] (]) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Move page ] == | |||
| PS I hope this is the right noticeboard for this kind of issues. ] (]) 07:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You might get a good response here, but you can also try posting the issue at ], which is specifically tailored to deal with copyright things. --]''''']''''' 14:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi ]. I agree with Jayron, but since I saw this, and would answer the same thing ]... It's not plagiarism, because the source is credited and the quotes are clearly marked. But it is still a copyright infringement. The amount of copyright text quoted far exceeds what is acceptable per ] policy. The quoted segments need to be shortened to at most one or two sentences, and the rest of the content should be appropriately summarised. See also ] of ]. ] (]) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] I see. Maybe you could send a message to ] to instruct him what to do. ] (]) 14:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], I've left message about this issue at ] and directed the editor to that talk page. Best, ] (]) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Please help me move page ] to ] (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was . ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == OTRS issue == | |||
| :{{done}}. For future reference, if you're prevented from moving a page only for technical reasons, you can make a request at ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small>Moving to the OTRS noticeboard. ] (]) 11:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg == | |||
| == Proposed topic ban for 2 editors == | |||
| Can an admin take a look at ]? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a ] request based on the last post added by the uploader to ]. -- ] (]) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The article ] is currently going through a second nomination for deletion. After several ANI incidents and lots of discussion, two editors stand out as being extremely disruptive to the Misplaced Pages community. Instead of rehashing the arguments here, I would like to nominate two editors for a topic ban. ] I'm asking for community consensus from involved editors to determine whether a topic ban for one or both editors is appropriate action. Comments from the community are welcome. ] (]) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. ] (] | ]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Background'''. | |||
| Recent threads at AN/I: and . Discussion at Jimbo: . | |||
| * More examples: ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * Ownership issues | |||
| == Topic ban appeal from ] == | |||
| '''Proposed bans for topics on ] and ]''' | |||
| {{atop|status=Not lifted|1=Snow fell in Florida this week, and ] is falling here. There is zero consensus for lifting the topic bans. (Note that I considered leaving this open to allow for answering Sandstein's question - but then saw Dronebogus has been editing elsewhere, and replying to a topic further down in this discussion, without doing so.) - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ===First nominee=== | |||
| I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at ]. My reasons are as follows: | |||
| ] - Previously named Producer. Original creator of the article ] | |||
| # The bans are both over a year old. | |||
| *'''Support''' as nominator. ] (]) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place. | |||
| *'''Support''' for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. ] (]) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion. | |||
| *'''Strong support''' for the decision to reproduce a vitriolic article on Misplaced Pages, and for the disruptive protection of it. ] (]) 19:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about. | |||
| *'''Strong support ''' for creating an antisemitic article that relies heavily on ] sources , such an editor should be prevented in any way possible from editing further articles relating to ] --] (]) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. ] (]) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' based on the fact that this editor copied over to Misplaced Pages, in substantial part, an article that ran on a notorious anti-Semitic website. See analysis at . There may well be other reasons to topic-ban this editor, but this is enough. No, more than enough, to topic-ban this editor from any subject even remotely related to Judaism or Communism. ] (]) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' Links to discussions . ] 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a block for Potočnik if it can be established that he copied non-free content into the project. This is sufficient reason for an indefinite general block, in my opinion, actually, given the context. However, if it cannot be established that non-free content was copied, then the case is a bit muddier. Certainly Producer showed tendentious behaviour at many points during the discussion, but whether it raises to the level of a topic ban, especially given that he has been quiet for some time now, is uncertain. I'd certainly ''like'' to see him blocked for bringing this garbage into the project, but having an objectionable stance on an issue is not sufficient policy reason, so I think this all hinges on the nature of the content copied (in terms of ownership, not odiousness) and how close the material added conformed to it. ] ] 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you ] (]) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Creating an article that presented an anti-Semitic view is disruptive. Even if the article itself was justified, beginning it in such a POV tone makes it much harder to improve it, thereby wasting the time of dozens of editors at various noticeboards, including an RfC and two AfDs. ] (]) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''': Not only was the article creation immensely disruptive, but the persistent, unrelenting and determined defense of that article against any change or improvement, or any lessening of its anti-Semitism or attempt to balance its neutrality, was terrible damaging to the project. Indefinite site ban. ] (]) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak oppose''' pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. ] ] 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I !voted in so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. ] ] 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Involved oppose'''. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after ], but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? , which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of ''before'' being sanctioned. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. ] (] | ]) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is ] at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced ] and ]. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. ] (]) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. ] (]) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', based on my just seeing this post, on the talk page of someone else who is thinking about a ban appeal: . My recollection is that Dronebogus supported that other editor's ban, so this wasn't a friendly joke intended to lighten the mood. That Dronebogus would do such a thing while ''this'' appeal is in progress says a lot, none of it good. --] (]) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It ''was'' a joke, and I’ve apologized sincerely. ] (]) 07:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Involved oppose''' as the editor who proposed the XfD tban. I don't see anything in the OP's request to justify lifting either ban. While the stigma of a tban may be inconvenient, Dronebogus should have taken this inconvenience into consideration before engaging in the behavior that earned these sanctions. ] (]) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I suggest you to continue building the articles and participate in article talk pages. ] (]) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Closure request for ITN RfC == | |||
| ===Second nominee=== | |||
| ] - Blindly supported Producer and now changed his mind. Has a history of disruptive editing. | |||
| *'''Support''' as nominator. ] (]) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. ] (]) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban on subjects related to Judaism or Communism. While it may be true that he was not aware of the origins of this article, the fact is that he blindly and unreasonably supported the article after it was created by Producer. That is evident by simply reviewing his actions after the article was created. See and in particular his rollback of 14:01, 3 March 2014 with the edit summary "standard USChick nonsense.." Eh, no. It was not USChick's nonsense or anyone's nonsense. It was an effort to reverse some of the damage that Producer was causing to the project by copying over text from an anti-Semitic website and creating an article that quickly passed muster with ] and was reproduced there. Producer put in motion this effort to make Misplaced Pages a part of this daisy chain of drivel-producers, and Director became his right-hand man, fighting alongside him in the article and, on the talk page. But you don't have to wade through all the verbiage on the talk page, all the nastiness, all the threats, all the boorish behavior, all the saber-rattling. This is enough. I appreciate that he now favors deletion of the article, but his behavior in this article is such that it cannot be ignored, and a topic ban is necessary to protect the project from further such behavior. ] (]) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. ] (]) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' The case is presently unclear for Director as well. More so than anyone, Producer included, his behaviour reflected battleground mentality and a lack of appreciation for our non-negotiable civility policies and had I been asked to respond to this proposal a few days ago, I would have given unequivocal support for not just a topic ban, but probably a general block. However, I question the wisdom of blocking a user just as they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter (albeit only by a lightning bolt revelation), and have backed off from their combative behaviour some, even expressing mortification over the whole affair. I know it's a risk, given past patterns of behaviour, but I wonder that maybe the best approach, and the one suggested to us by policy, is to give this user a chance to assimilate the obvious lesson here, rather than assuming he can't, given his change in position. I said it in the AfD already, but it bears repeating here: it's easier to change a person's approach to a situation than it is their motive and while Director exhibited considerable problems in his approach, it is clear his motive was ''not'' antisemitism. I think I (narrowly) support leaving Director's editing privileges intact, as per ]; if he exhibits the same problematic approach to contentious issues in the future as he did in the present article (and apparently in the past on others) then I would whole-heartedly support a general and indefinite block and will participate with vigor in the process to see it done. ] ] 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :A quick skim of it makes it seem like it may be better closed by a panel. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' at least a broad topic ban. Director's dropping of his determined opposition in the face of conclusive evidence of the article's toxic sourcing is commendable, but comes after months of vitriolic posts and even more vitriolic disputation and incessant edit-warring. If Director and Producer were not in fact sock puppets, observers may be forgiven the assumption for they frequently acted in close concert, dominating the page and effectively shutting out alternative voices while threatening to "report" almost everyone who ventured the slightest disagreement. Even after his recantation, for example, Director asserts '''on the AfD page''' that my own précis of WP:FRINGE makes it impossible for him to WP:AGF . Director has burnt countless hours of time and irreplaceable reservoirs of good will; had this received broader publicity, the damage could well have been much worse.] (]) 20:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| An arbitration case ] has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| ===Additional discussion=== | |||
| First, I think you should be looking for feedback from ''un''involved editors. Secondly, if you want to hear from the Misplaced Pages community, ] is a better forum for this than ]. You will also need to present diffs outlining specific acts of disruption. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This noticeboard is for ban proposals. ANI is for specific incidents. This proposal spans lots of incidents over a long period of time. ] (]) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Liz, it's patently obvious that Director and Producer need to be banned, and maybe not just from this article. But they're really symptoms of a bigger issue: how admins enforce the rules. Both Director and Producer are counting on admins who don't really investigate an issue before acting, and who become indignant at suggestions that they've made an ill-informed decision or acted defensively/impulsively. | |||
| ::I'd be in favor of a checklist of inquiries that ought to be made before punishing someone in response to a complaint. Maybe blocking shouldn't be at the discretion of just one admin.--] (]) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Either is allowable (to be fair to both of you, the guidelines in the headers have a bit of an identity crisis, between the version on the viewable page and the one on edit page), but I daresay you'd get more involvement if this were on ANI. ] ] 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. | |||
| Note for admins: An in depth discussion of the behaviour of these two has already been discussed at a controversial ] in which these two were VERY involved (and, in my opinion, overly controlling of). The discussion led to a near-consensus there calling for a topic ban to be made on Director and Producer/Potocnik. ] ] ] 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| * Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator. | |||
| * Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at ] about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion. | |||
| * ] and ] are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: {{tq|Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.}} | |||
| * Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. | |||
| * The community is encouraged to run a ] aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping. | |||
| * The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE. | |||
| * Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The ] page contains information that may help. | |||
| * Within this topic area, the '''balanced editing restriction''' is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE. {{cot|Details of the balanced editing restriction}} | |||
| :* In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. | |||
| :**This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly ], and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. | |||
| :**Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. | |||
| :* They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). | |||
| :* This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. | |||
| :* Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| * If a ] or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their ] to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators ] contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Summary:''' ] was adapted in late February 2014 by ], then known as Producer, from an article found on the site of a Holocaust denier. Producer and Director worked tirelessly and in concert to avoid changes to the article, almost invariably adopting a combative and threatening tone in Talk and edit comments. Despite its very evident problems, its rancid anti-Semitism, and the discussion at Jimbo, the article survived a March 2014 AfD as No Consensus. The article is again at AfD, where many thousands of words have been expended and where the article has attracted negligible support after the revelation of its roots. Director changed his position from Strong Keep to Delete; Potocnik has been silent. | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == Reverse partial blocks are coming to MediaWiki! == | |||
| '''The Problem:''' Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of volunteer hours have been spent, and tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of thousands of words have been written, in order to keep a vitriolically anti-Semitic attack page off Misplaced Pages, or at least to reduce the worst aspects of that page. This is a terrible waste. It is clear that two or three dedicated and sophisticated editors, working together and cooperating closely, can tie the project in knots. This page would have been terribly embarrassing to the project if it had received wider media attention but it was also a comparatively easy call; we may not be as lucky in the future. The community needs a forum to consider and address the problems this episode so clearly presents. There will always be anti-Semites and zealots and conspiracy theorists and fanatics eager to spread The Word and capable of "following the sources" to cram racism, anti-semitism, fringe science, and fanaticism into Misplaced Pages, and where just two or three are gathered together they are extremely difficult or impossible to oppose. We have strong policies against socks, but two or three coordinated ideologues can assume ownership of a page and do nearly anything provided they take care to cherry-pick sources and avoid ''concerted'' opposition. If Misplaced Pages does not address this problem, it will have no future. ] (]) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi! I’m excited to announce a new feature—'''reverse partial blocks'''—which I developed for the admin toolkit and is coming soon to MediaWiki core. I’m posting here to gather feedback, discuss usage policy, and answer any questions. | |||
| :Alright, let's not panic here. Misplaced Pages does have processes for handling these situations, processes that have not even been exhausted in this case; ArbCom, for example, was never brought in on matters though I think a number of us anticipated it heading in that direction. For that matter, no manner of formal mediation was requested, though postings were made to ANI. It strikes me as a bit histrionic to prophesy the doom of the project over this scenario. You're of course more than welcome (encouraged even) to take any proposals or discussion about new guidelines to ], but I suspect you'll get mostly comments along the lines of what I have to say here -- that is to say, this situation is well-covered in existing policy and this situation became the chore that it did because those policies were not applied as elegantly as they could have been (venues that could have been explored weren't and administrator involvement was not what it could have been, both of which happen from time to time). Let's also remember that, meatpuppetry (for which we also have policies) aside, two or three editors working ardently against prevailing consensus is not in and of itself problem behaviour -- it's just the reality of Misplaced Pages and something we depend upon really. That said, clearly there ''was'' problematic behaviour involved here, but again, that can all be addressed through existing process (as is being done in this very thread for example), and it makes little sense to me to try to reinvent the wheel when only a portion of the possible solutions we have at our disposal have been tapped. ] ] 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === What is it? === | |||
| *'''Comment''' I personally think that article is appalling, as was the behavior of these two editors. During the brief time I was involved in that article, I was attacked by the two of them, and threatened by one. I didn't like some of the talk page comments I saw; I felt that some of them were ugly, raising, in one instance, the religious background of an editor in a gratuitous fashion. Even so, I'd like to see some diffs. Who did what. There is new evidence that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Whoever did the copying should be topic-banned. Whoever abetted that action, ditto. Other specific evidence of bad behavior should also be introduced. Similarly, I'm not sure the timing is correct, though I admit that it is easier to engage in this discussion now, while the article and its talk page still exist. ] (]) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Reverse partial blocks allow admins to block a user sitewide but exempt specific pages or namespaces. This was based on a ] and implemented in MediaWiki. (Note: TPA access works separately, based on the "allow user to edit their own talk page" option on ]) | |||
| :::: The demonstration of the original version's reliance on an article from the ''Institute for Historical Research'' is . The talk page's numerous archives -- all since February 2014 -- speak for themselves, as does the outcry at AfD. I'm very concerned by the amount of volunteer time and energy this is requiring, with seemingly unbounded demands for further demonstrations of diffs, evidence, argumentation, surely to come. What is to be done? ] (]) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are lots of diffs listed in the ANI examples. For anyone interested, they can see them there. My concern is with the attitude of the two editors and their tag team effort to shut down any discussion on the talk page and block other editors from participating. This is also documented in the archived talk pages of ] and ]. ] (]) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It didn't require that much of a deep-dive into the evidence to see the justification for topic bans for both editors. See my comments above. ] (]) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I could write an entire essay here about the highly inappropriate behavior of a large number of editors on that article, the flaming, the accusations of antisemitism, the ''incessant'' use of edit-warring as a substitute for discussion, the accusations of sockpuppetry, etc, etc.. But I won't. #1 because the article is being deleted and this is a <u>dead issue</u>, #2 because I just now went away on business and hace nothing but my phone, and #3 because I don't care, tbh. To single out Producer and me for sanctions, imo, defies all logic. The article did turn out to be based in part on some IHR essay - but ''nobody knew that'' at that time. I didn't; and the sources checked out. When the IHR thing was revealed, I immediately supported deletion and repeatedly apologized to everyone. If someone wishes to "take revenge" for my defending the article, fine, I won't offer any kind of detailed defense. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I respect that you may not have known but it is highly unlikely that the Producer, who created the article, did not --] (]) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Director, I deeply appreciate your change of heart on the article. But the fact remains that the article that Producer created was, on its face, an act of anti-Semitic propaganda. One did not have to know chapter and verse or its precise origins to see that. But you dove right in and acted as his trusty right hand, Robin to his Batman, or perhaps the second Batman. I don't think that you should be punished. But I do think that you need to be separated from articles on this subject for the good of the project. ] (]) 20:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, and this is why we're here, it is ''not'' a dead issue. If indeed this article is deleted, as is entirely possible as it seems to be a ] situation, I am sure ] will rear its ugly head in the blink of an eye. ] (]) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Director, has it not occurred to you that the recurrent suggestion of antisemitism at work in the motives of those defending the content might be related to the fact that the content itself was perceived to be indicative of the type of synthesis of facts consistent with an antisemitic view, a fact that was borne out once we discovered the origins of the content? Other contributors saw that at once. You interpreted the content differently and did not detect that underlying motive at work. That's fine, and nobody expects every editor to catch something along those lines, and I for one take it on faith you were operating as to what you thought was the approrpiate approach to the content. But is unreasonable in this context to not understand the suspicion of others, when there ''was promotion of obviously antisemitic material at work'' and when you would like, presumably, for others to be understanding of your good faith support of that material. You may notice that, despite having considerable reservations about your behaviour on that article and it's talk page, I've gone out of my way to advise restraint in regards to sanctions against you, on the hope that your change of position reflects that you're capable of reforming your approach a little. But you're not helping the case for that approach when you don't own up to how you contributed to the mess that became of that situation. And here I'm not longer talking about the antisemitic issue at all, but rather your tendency to see everyone else as the problem and you as the besieged party. You went into full-on battle-mode on that page. You were unreceptive to opposing arguments and frequently uncivil, both in terms of denigrating your opposition's perspectives and, most especially, ignoring ], the very principle to which you would now like to appeal, constantly. Having seen this situation play out many, many times on the noticeboards, I'm telling you that you have a very limited window here to get out ahead of things, but it requires owning up to your mistakes in full (that is, not just as regards being duped by material), and commiting to another approach. If editing on Misplaced Pages and in these areas is important to you, I'd do it fast, before the votes stack, even if your circumstances allow only a small message. ] ] 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The code is complete, passes all tests, and is waiting for approval from WMF Trust and Safety. You can track progress and view the code ]. Once approved, it will go live on English Misplaced Pages the following ]. | |||
| == Personal attacks from ] and ]/] == | |||
| === Try it out === | |||
| I have already attempted to discuss the situation with JzG (, , , ), but he has refused to do so, contrary to ]. Because of the strong wording of DangerousPanda's attack (including comments made as EatsShootsAndLeaves) and his or her subsequent messages after being questioned by another user, I believed it would not have been productive to respond to the attack through full conversation. | |||
| I’ve set up a where you can preview the new features, including the updated ] and ] interfaces. Log in with admin username Patch Demo and password patchdemo1 to experiment with reverse partial blocks, but please reset block settings to how you found them once you've finished, to allow others to experiment. (Note: if you're a wannabe admin or just curious about how the tools look, you can use this account as well to test them out). | |||
| Here are a selection of upsetting personal attacks made against me and my edits: , , . The contents of these attacks are completely untrue, including the unfounded accusations of 'endless querulous demands', 'abusing process and people' and 'trolling'. I am more than happy to address any aspect of my previous editing history to convince you of this. There are still, of course, the stronger accusations of being 'sexist', 'abusive' and 'on a single-minded crusade', to give just a few examples of the comments made. | |||
| To see how it works for a reverse-partially-blocked user, log in as Mallory (has TPA, editing only allowed on their "ArbCom case" page) with the same password. | |||
| The issue from which this has arisen is rather complicated, so I shall condense it into just a few sentences. I am more than happy to explain any aspect of it in as much detail as required, if necessary. I saw a discussion at ] and believed there to be a reasonable possibility for a successful move request based on the existing comments of editors. I consulted guidelines and found that the move request was also supported there. The problem, however, is that some users disagreed with the request, some very strongly, in an 'ignore all rules' kind of way. This meant that there were some strong feelings, especially aimed towards me, the user who made the request. Without any warning or discussion, I was blocked by JzG for one week. The personal attacks were made on various Misplaced Pages pages during this week. | |||
| === Your feedback === | |||
| I fully admit I made two mistakes during the move request, albeit where I had good intentions. I have included an explanation below should it be relevant. As far as I am concerned, it is the only aspect of my editing that has been problematic and, even then, it could have been resolved immediately by a simple notification from any other user. | |||
| {{Collapse|1= | |||
| JzG closed the request prematurely based on incorrect information, showing he had misinterpreted the situation. I left a note on his talk page for discussion (he later told me to 'talk to the hand') and reverted the close. Not long later, ] closed the request again. I was not aware Drmies was an administrator; I believed he was an ordinary user who closed the discussion because of his own feelings about the request. I maintain this was a reasonable assumption given the strong personal feelings that were present, how the close seemed contrary to ] (it was 'ignore all rules' with no clear consensus) and how ] blanked a discussion on the page he or she did not like a few days earlier. I reverted the close and was blocked by JzG, without explanation or discussion, before I had any chance to communicate with Drmies. My mistake was that I thought I was entitled to make a revert three times, especially when reverting what was an apparent mistake or non-neutral and unsupported close. Now that I have been directed to more accurate guidelines, I recognise that I should not have reverted, even had my intuition been correct. I have already apologised for this and stated that I would not have reverted had I known the relevant guidance, no matter what I thought of the edits. | |||
| |2= Explanation}} | |||
| If you could change anything about this feature, what would you do? (I will implement any wanted suggestions!) | |||
| At least three other experienced users, including an arbitrator, have raised concerns at the conduct of JzG and DangerousPanda (, , , ). I do not know where it can be addressed, though. I thought ] would be appropriate because it concerns the actions of administrators, but the request was declined. The committee seemed to suggest that I should post here, even though some of the attacks made by JzG were made to this page. Ultimately, I would like to know whether administrators are entitled to make these attacks against editors with whom they disagree or whether this behaviour is entirely acceptable. As always, if there is anything that needs explaining, let me know and I shall do so. I want to help. ] (]) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If you don’t have time to try it, what would you expect from a feature like this? When do you think it’s appropriate to use, and when is it not? | |||
| :In case anyone is not aware of this, This same user recent made an ArbCom case request for these same issues which was declined, so the user is trying to forum shop for some double jeopardy trials imo. I suggest this be speedily closed and if the ip persists in his disruptive accusations he should be blocked. ] (]) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I’m happy to answer any questions about how it works and would love to hear your thoughts! | |||
| ::I wrote about the ] case above and why I have made a post it here. The arbitrators who declined it suggested that it was not serious enough for arbitration and that it should resolved elsewhere, such as here. Gaijin42, are you trying to say that complaining about these attacks constitutes making dusruptive accusations and that I could be blocked for making such complaints? If you have not done so already, please look through what I wrote above. I can promise you that I am anything but a disruptive user and you will see this if you look carefully. ] (]) 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for all the great work you do as admins! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Sorry, I don't see my involvement here. My statement to 131.x well over a week ago was clearly ''not'' a ] - stating it to ArbCom does not make it so. Nobody at the attempted ArbCom case even mentioned it. On top of that, 131.x has by their own admission refused to attempt to clarify my meaning directly with me, but instead is acting in a very disingenuous manner by trying to link 2 things that clearly don't belong together, hoping to make something stick. The three big U's are at play here: untrue, unethical, and unacceptable <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I think you're naively optimistic about the code review process - it's more likely in my opinion that this will languish unreviewed for months. Cool idea, and thanks for coding it up, though. ] ] 07:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess so, I was just so excited to have actually coded a new feature! Maybe it will be approved in time for the 1.44 release in mid-April but we will have to see. Thank you for helping me with rechecks! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], I'm curious for the process of this coming together. Is there a discussion page you can point to that followed the progress of this admin tool? It seems to come out of nowhere but maybe I don't have the right pages on my Watchlist. Except for obvious vandals, I don't do a lot of blocking so I don't know how much this feature will impact the work that I do here. I'll have to consider this a bit more. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi! Discussion has mainly occured on Metawiki and phabricator. This has been an item on the Metawiki Community wishlist for several years now (but never selected as one that the WMF make, because most voters aren't admins so it doesn't get a high ranking) that has received support from admins across various projects and been renominated by different users for each year's wishlist for several years now, and yesterday Barkeep49 added it to the 2025 wishlist. Additionally, on phabricator (see ], that's probably the main ticket) it will be celebrating its 15th birthday this year and during that time a large number of admins have subscribed (basically like watchlisting) and many have offered reasons why they want it/it is needed for their language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your consideration! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you, that's the background context I was looking for. I appreciate you providing it. Congratulations on your coding accomplishment! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you! I hope it can be useful to you admins once it gets approved and merged. :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:05, 24 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- 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 discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion- Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
| 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 20 | 22 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 | 73 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 21 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 58 sockpuppet investigations
- 13 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 6 requests for RD1 redaction
- 100 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 23 requested closures
- 34 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 22 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
NO CONSENSUS This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. Beeblebrox 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
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)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.
- 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)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 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)
- 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 tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe 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)
- I think saying that
- 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 onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- 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)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. Beeblebrox 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
- Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Lardlegwarmers block appeal
Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement from Lardlegwarmers
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
References
Statement from Tamzin
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.
Discussion among uninvolved editors
- This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as
Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups);which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
banblock to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after thebanblock expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
- Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock this specific response
Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue,my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say thata block for this stuff seems harsh.
TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to
all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic
, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments from involved editors
- Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that
apparently two wrongs make a right
, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f
**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ban appeal from Rathfelder
- Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
- Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
- Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB
Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist",
in wikivoicewith a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I’m not unmistaken User:Jytdog was banned by ArbCom, not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic unblockable actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here longer. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Pppeery-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. Martinp (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Misplaced Pages, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a de facto one. This is a feature, not a bug. Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Support per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit
Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2020 signups through Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that
here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup
, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting info
Steve Quinn is
trouted for bringing this to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
- File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
- File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
- File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
- File:AppalachianTN.jpg
- File:Acplate.jpg
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Please Help Me!
Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from Bhairava7 but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from 2 Factor Authication, so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through WP:ACC due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed to Bhairava7. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
- I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
BAG nomination
Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I need help from an admin - Urgent
I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help.
Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relevant article:
- An Orange from Jaffa (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- OP possibly using multiple accounts:
- Mohamugha1 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MohammedAlmughanni (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DMacks (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- MohammedAlmughanni blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian
fr.wiki is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. Lebronzejames999 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
EncycloDeterminate unblocked
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it is no longer necessary.
For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EncycloDeterminate unblocked
Permission request
| WP:LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
No. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for WP:AWB editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you CFA (AWB) (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Proposed community ban of Marginataen
COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED This clearly fall sunder theexcept in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hourscondition of WP:CBAN. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a long-term block on the wiki of their native language), and two days after their last unblock, they were blocked for a week for mass-changes to date formats without consensus, as discussed at ANI. Well they've gone back to more unwarranted mass-date format changes like this; their last hundred edits at the time of writing are a good sampler. Despite being explicitly told that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have continued to use topic similarity as a justification for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.
They clearly have extreme "I didn't hear that" problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which introduced Manual of Style violations of their own. Furthermore, in the light of this AN discussion (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their creation of the spin-off article Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. Graham87 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.) Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. Northern Moonlight 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 20 more edits after the AN notice. Northern Moonlight 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. Økonom (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Per proposal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Don't waste the community's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: Tamborg, Bubfernr, and LatteDK. There may be others that I have missed. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support.
I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently asked Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen responded: "Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates". And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to two more articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps going. Hopeless. Block. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Gotta play by the rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. Brandon (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a competence problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:TWC DC1
Warned, then sockblocked. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.G7 request by a blocked account
G7'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin take a look at this? It appears to be a "db-author" request for Draft:Francesca Martí. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Sapo.pt
Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Proxy question
I recently enabled the IP Info widget and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., (Redacted)). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at WP:OP. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Over on WP:OP we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO
- Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Undeletion + XML export request
Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of Drum set tuning, use Special:Export, and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per b:WB:UT. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19
Stray page deleted (non-admin closure) Mlkj (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps someone could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Done I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you The Bushranger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPN closures
I'm just going to close this complaint because there isn't any consensus to take any action on any of the formal or informal proposals. Liz 07:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601AC47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deb Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2 sections Deb Matthews and Ministry of Education (Ontario)(MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions.
I have discussed with the user on User talk:2601AC47#Closures_on_WP:BLPN. The user refused to change the summaries. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So much for cooperation... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. Liz 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per WP:BIT. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . Many editors have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system, but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. TiggerJay (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building.
- Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468.
- Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468
- Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629
- Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022
- Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're aware, per Misplaced Pages:Retiring § Pending sanctions, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have claimed to have retired previously, please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with policies and guidelines, especially as it related to handling disputes. TiggerJay (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus disagrees: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with you, not the culture. Tarlby 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing WP:1AM. You might find it helpful. TiggerJay (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Misplaced Pages for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Misplaced Pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a
secondthirdn-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- @Tamzin -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a
- They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.
- We can enforce guidelines about civility, Legend of 14, but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Misplaced Pages, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. Liz 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.
- My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.
- Timeline of how this ended up here:
- Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
- Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
- Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
- Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.
- I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". User talk:2601AC47
- An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.
- I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605
- I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 User talk:Legend of 14#Preferred Pronouns User talk:Tiggerjay#January 2025
- I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be
uncivil
. - But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those
sanctions
may include a block from Misplaced Pages, which is possible given the circumstances and, as that policy states as of now, can be enforced toencourage a more productive, congenial editing style
. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually request an unblock and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware that we're serious about it); (struggles to think of a closing sentence) farewell, Legend. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) - But nobody on Misplaced Pages can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those
- I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding
there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behavior
is almost always because nobody else sees how you're being treated as uncivil, even after you've presented your best evidence of such claims. TYour perceptions of other people is causing you undue stress that is of your own doing. However, if this is truly causing anegative impact
on you, I have to ask WHY are you still coming back here? If anyone feels stressed by contributing to a volunteer project, they should simply take a Wikibreak, and not just say it, but literally turn off all notifications, logout, and set some sort of calendar reminder for some point in the future before you even look at a Misplaced Pages page. This should be your happy place, not a stress inducer. TiggerJay (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean I agree people were being rude at BLPN and people on wiki are often needlessly antagonistic. The issue is that because that's the case, what would get someone fired in a professional environment is treated as not a big deal here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be
@Legend of 14: recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: WP:CIR block for Legend of 14
Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support As proposer. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited WP:BLP content from Ministry of Education (Ontario) I listened. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear WP:1AM situation. TiggerJay (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this is still going on support I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, Legend of 14, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ Lindsay 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ Lindsay 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was simply pointing out the pre-redacted state if you happened to only read the current talk page, they removed over 8k bytes from their talk page, which further adds context and shows conflict skills. I agree that they sound "younger" especially by their approach and rejection to experience, but their actual age has little to do with their ability to contribute, however, emotional maturity is something that does weigh into the ability to manage conflict. TiggerJay (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ Lindsay 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a huge overreaction. Can an involved admin please close this thread so everyone can get on with editing instead of fanning the flames of this inconsequential dispute? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays?
For example, Hussein al-Khalil. In theory I think this could be deleted via WP:G5 for violating WP:ARBECR. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?
Hmm, actually this is an article about a Hezbollah member, not a Hamas member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. If it was (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles should be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, it should probably be nuked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete ASAP and don't look back. Re: "does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete and block BasselHarfouch site-wide for continued violations. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Deleted. And I also deleted Unit 900 for the same reason. I'll let another admin block if it is warranted. * Pppery * it has begun... 07:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Archive bots
This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger. Maybe you are thinking of meta:InternetArchiveBot#Using the bot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality.
We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per WP:NOTFORUM (and, indeed, WP:BEANS). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As observed here, Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated. — Masem (t) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? Silverseren 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against. — Masem (t) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations
Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ideas for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Legal threat
Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on User talk:Jack at BTCGPU. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive editor
WP:BOOMERANG. Level 2 warning issued. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:The Green Star Collector has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. FactsheetPete (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale
Crouch, Swale was blocked for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a site ban. In 2017 they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In December, Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ArbCom and after questioning on his talk page basically said he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. ToBeFree correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Misplaced Pages. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Misplaced Pages, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are too many missing dots here. Crouch, Swale's editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:
- one account restriction
- topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
- prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
- prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
- That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.
- They then went to appeal with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).
- Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.
- I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.
- Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.
- @Blue-Sonnet Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Misplaced Pages should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support the site ban that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. Sandstein 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Misplaced Pages as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. Star Mississippi 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. CaptainEek ⚓ 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's hard to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The site-ban, of course. The regular block isn't even being reviewed here, I think - obviously if someone overtly threatens to do those sorts of things and doesn't back down they have to be blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. WP:EMERGENCY covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not above my pay grade to use common sense. But do what you think you need to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. WP:EMERGENCY covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This whole situation is just weird. I was reading WP:AE for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was someone who came back to Misplaced Pages after being blocked for an extensive period of time. If I was in a situation where I didn’t want to edit anymore, requesting a site ban for myself would be the wrong way to do so. There are better ways to handle these things rather than this. Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with taking a break from Misplaced Pages if you feel it is getting in the way of your life. It can be stressful for editors to tell you things you don’t necessarily want to hear, but there are more important things in life than Misplaced Pages which are in the physical world. I’ve been one of those people. You can also request a self-block on yourself rather than doing every naughty thing you can do to get yourself blocked. Those blocks are harder to get yourself back into the community if you feel you need to. I’d rather do everything right on Misplaced Pages rather than do a bunch of wrong things. In a nutshell, that’s basically how I feel. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Meh They can't appeal on their talk page, and I can't imagine the small group of admins that does the heavy lifting at UTRS unblocking them. The only other avenue of appeal is the committee, which seems equally unlikely, so I'm not really seeing much risk here. Beeblebrox 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I just hope they are okay. I think the site ban was completely justified, but something seems off here, and if they want to return, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the normal procedures. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I have met Crouch at the RFD, and demonstrate that he can be a productive user. They asked for a block (or even ban) was probably due to real-life matter. At this stage, an indefinite block seems enough. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
WMF research on admins
There's a 70 page final report over at c:File:(Final Report) Administrator recruitment, retention, & attrition (SDS1.2.2).pdf. Apparently it will be part of something called the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Misplaced Pages Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Liz, hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Misplaced Pages. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also available on Meta-Wiki if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.
- On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! CLo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like this line
1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured.
That was my experience! Liz 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)- Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- Ponyo 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Move page Lien Khuong Airport
Please help me move page Lien Khuong Airport to Lien Khuong International Airport (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was changed name (and upgraded) to an international airport since June 2024. Pk.over (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. For future reference, if you're prevented from moving a page only for technical reasons, you can make a request at WP:RMTR. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg
Can an admin take a look at File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a WP:G7 request based on the last post added by the uploader to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2025 January 22#File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal from User:Dronebogus
NOT LIFTED Snow fell in Florida this week, and WP:SNOW is falling here. There is zero consensus for lifting the topic bans. (Note that I considered leaving this open to allow for answering Sandstein's question - but then saw Dronebogus has been editing elsewhere, and replying to a topic further down in this discussion, without doing so.) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. My reasons are as follows:
- The bans are both over a year old.
- I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
- The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
- I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.
For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note Links to discussions . Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. Sandstein 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. Star Mississippi 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I !voted in this discussion so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. Star Mississippi 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved oppose. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after an RfC unanimously went against them, but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? Removing comments critical of them in discussions, which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of before being sanctioned. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is an open thread at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced here and here. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- Ponyo 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Misplaced Pages. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, based on my just seeing this post, on the talk page of someone else who is thinking about a ban appeal: . My recollection is that Dronebogus supported that other editor's ban, so this wasn't a friendly joke intended to lighten the mood. That Dronebogus would do such a thing while this appeal is in progress says a lot, none of it good. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a joke, and I’ve apologized sincerely. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved oppose as the editor who proposed the XfD tban. I don't see anything in the OP's request to justify lifting either ban. While the stigma of a tban may be inconvenient, Dronebogus should have taken this inconvenience into consideration before engaging in the behavior that earned these sanctions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I suggest you to continue building the articles and participate in article talk pages. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Closure request for ITN RfC
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- A quick skim of it makes it seem like it may be better closed by a panel. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
An arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
- AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
- Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion.
- WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each:
Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
- Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
- The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
- The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
- Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
- Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
| Details of the balanced editing restriction |
|---|
|
- If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
Reverse partial blocks are coming to MediaWiki!
Hi! I’m excited to announce a new feature—reverse partial blocks—which I developed for the admin toolkit and is coming soon to MediaWiki core. I’m posting here to gather feedback, discuss usage policy, and answer any questions.
What is it?
Reverse partial blocks allow admins to block a user sitewide but exempt specific pages or namespaces. This was based on a wish from Barkeep49 and implemented in MediaWiki. (Note: TPA access works separately, based on the "allow user to edit their own talk page" option on Special:Block)
The code is complete, passes all tests, and is waiting for approval from WMF Trust and Safety. You can track progress and view the code here on Gerrit. Once approved, it will go live on English Misplaced Pages the following Thursday.
Try it out
I’ve set up a Patch Demo instance where you can preview the new features, including the updated Special:BlockList and Special:Block interfaces. Log in with admin username Patch Demo and password patchdemo1 to experiment with reverse partial blocks, but please reset block settings to how you found them once you've finished, to allow others to experiment. (Note: if you're a wannabe admin or just curious about how the tools look, you can use this account as well to test them out).
To see how it works for a reverse-partially-blocked user, log in as Mallory (has TPA, editing only allowed on their "ArbCom case" page) with the same password.
Your feedback
If you could change anything about this feature, what would you do? (I will implement any wanted suggestions!)
If you don’t have time to try it, what would you expect from a feature like this? When do you think it’s appropriate to use, and when is it not?
I’m happy to answer any questions about how it works and would love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks for all the great work you do as admins! :) MolecularPilot 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're naively optimistic about the code review process - it's more likely in my opinion that this will languish unreviewed for months. Cool idea, and thanks for coding it up, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 07:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess so, I was just so excited to have actually coded a new feature! Maybe it will be approved in time for the 1.44 release in mid-April but we will have to see. Thank you for helping me with rechecks! :) MolecularPilot 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- MolecularPilot, I'm curious for the process of this coming together. Is there a discussion page you can point to that followed the progress of this admin tool? It seems to come out of nowhere but maybe I don't have the right pages on my Watchlist. Except for obvious vandals, I don't do a lot of blocking so I don't know how much this feature will impact the work that I do here. I'll have to consider this a bit more. Liz 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Discussion has mainly occured on Metawiki and phabricator. This has been an item on the Metawiki Community wishlist for several years now (but never selected as one that the WMF make, because most voters aren't admins so it doesn't get a high ranking) that has received support from admins across various projects and been renominated by different users for each year's wishlist for several years now, and yesterday Barkeep49 added it to the 2025 wishlist. Additionally, on phabricator (see phab:T27400, that's probably the main ticket) it will be celebrating its 15th birthday this year and during that time a large number of admins have subscribed (basically like watchlisting) and many have offered reasons why they want it/it is needed for their language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your consideration! :) MolecularPilot 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's the background context I was looking for. I appreciate you providing it. Congratulations on your coding accomplishment! Liz 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! I hope it can be useful to you admins once it gets approved and merged. :) MolecularPilot 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's the background context I was looking for. I appreciate you providing it. Congratulations on your coding accomplishment! Liz 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Discussion has mainly occured on Metawiki and phabricator. This has been an item on the Metawiki Community wishlist for several years now (but never selected as one that the WMF make, because most voters aren't admins so it doesn't get a high ranking) that has received support from admins across various projects and been renominated by different users for each year's wishlist for several years now, and yesterday Barkeep49 added it to the 2025 wishlist. Additionally, on phabricator (see phab:T27400, that's probably the main ticket) it will be celebrating its 15th birthday this year and during that time a large number of admins have subscribed (basically like watchlisting) and many have offered reasons why they want it/it is needed for their language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your consideration! :) MolecularPilot 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)